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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/10/2026, applicant amended claim 19. Due to amendment, the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 19 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the examiner does appreciate the difference between luma intensity values and coordinate values, it does not to appear to be conflated in the teachings of Takeshi.
With respect to the relevant portions of claim 1, it is the mere selection of luma samples that is referenced and its importance, at least in part, lies in the co-location between it and a chroma sample. This is why spatial coordination is pointed out for filtering and model building. While there is a passing mention of luma values within the claims, there is no specific technical operation that relies upon particular values with respect to selection, prediction or determination. Clearly there is going to be a maximum and a minimum intensity to each particular luma component and the entire core of these inventions is to tease out the prediction of said values based on co-located samples to build an accurate model.
Therefore, the introduction of both spatial location and ‘value’ (which could be considered vague and indefinite as claimed in some interpretations) is NOT mutually exclusive and, in fact, complementary to what is necessary for operation of both the claimed invention and that of Takeshi.
For those reasons, the rejections stand as presented below.
The remaining remarks do not bring up any other matters that aren’t covered by the discussion above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 19, 31-32 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshi (BR 112020004557 A2) referred to as TAKESHI hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, TAKESHI shows a method comprising, for at least one block of an image:
identifying a reference area for determining at least one cross-component model from reference luma and chroma samples (Paragraph [00308] discloses forecast sections of interest to be predicted upon.),
selecting, in the reference area of the block, reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples whose luma value is within a range of values of reconstructed luma samples of the block ranging from a minimum luma value of the reconstructed luma samples of the block to a maximum luma value of the reconstructed luma samples of the block (See various in FIGs 37-50 for visual representations of models among colocated and colocalized luma and chroma components. Paragraphs [00310]-[00340] describe this phenomenon in words. Further, as it relates to minimum and maximum values, that would be the +/- 2 in the various models for determining location values within a colocated region.),
determining the at least one cross-component model, based on the selected reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples (See various in FIGs 37-50 for visual representations of models among colocated and colocalized luma and chroma components. Paragraphs [00310]-[00340] describe this phenomenon in words.),
predicting chroma samples of the block based on the at least one cross-component model and reconstructed luma samples of the block (Paragraphs [00315]-[00316] disclose predicting chroma samples.), and
encoding or decoding the block based on the predicted chroma samples (See Abstract, which shows how the increased efficiency operations shown above fit into the ability of an encoding or decoding device.).
Regarding claim 2, TAKESHI shows an apparatus, comprising one or more processors (FIG. 74, discloses various hardware components as claimed for inputs/outputs, storage and display.), wherein the one or more processors are operable to, for at least one block of an image:
identify a reference area for determining at least one cross-component model from reference luma and chroma samples (Paragraph [00308] discloses forecast sections of interest to be predicted upon.),
select, in the reference area of the block, reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples whose luma value is within a range of values of the reconstructed luma samples of the block ranging from a minimum luma value of reconstructed luma samples of the block to a maximum luma value of reconstructed luma samples of the block (See various in FIGs 37-50 for visual representations of models among colocated and colocalized luma and chroma components. Paragraphs [00310]-[00340] describe this phenomenon in words. Further, as it relates to minimum and maximum values, that would be the +/- 2 in the various models for determining location values within a colocated region.),
determine the at least one cross-component model, based on the selected reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples (See various in FIGs 37-50 for visual representations of models among colocated and colocalized luma and chroma components. Paragraphs [00310]-[00340] describe this phenomenon in words.),
predict chroma samples of the block based on the at least one cross-component model and reconstructed luma samples of the block (Paragraphs [00315]-[00316] disclose predicting chroma samples.), and
encode or decode the block based on the predicted chroma samples (See Abstract, which shows how the increased efficiency operations shown above fit into the ability of an encoding or decoding device.).
Regarding claim 9, TAKESHI shows the method of claim 1, wherein the range of values representative of the reconstructed luma samples of the block is derived from an average and a standard deviation of the reconstructed luma samples of the block and a probability density function such that a given amount of reconstructed luma samples of the block has a value within the range (Paragraphs [00347]-[-00348] discloses determining a threshold value, from an average to represent a limit to stay within (i.e., a range).).
Regarding claim 10, TAKESHI shows the method of claim 1, wherein determining obtaining the at least one cross-component model based on the modified reference area comprises:
determining a first value from at least one of the reconstructed luma samples (Paragraph [00316], decoded image of a luma component.) of the block or the selected reference luma samples (Paragraph [00316], group of pixels.), and
classifying the selected reference luma samples based on the first value (Paragraphs [00319]-[00328] disclose classifying luma components with both the same and other regional locations to that of a reference chroma sample.),
wherein a cross-component model is determined for each class based on the selected reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples of the class (Paragraphs [00319]-[00328] disclose the various models generated.).
Regarding claim 19, TAKESHI shows the method of claim 1, wherein a second indicator indicates the reference area (Paragraph [00308], predModeIntraX).
Regarding claim 31, TAKESHI shows a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable program instructions to cause a computer executing the program instructions to perform a method according to claim 1 (FIG. 74, discloses various hardware components as claimed for inputs/outputs, storage and display.).
Regarding claim 32, TAKESHI shows a device comprising:
an apparatus according to claim 2 (See above); and
at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of the image , (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of the image, or (iii) a display configured to display the image (FIG. 74, discloses various hardware components as claimed for inputs/outputs, storage and display.).
Regarding claim 34, TAKESHI shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein the range of values of the reconstructed luma samples of the block is derived from an average and a standard deviation of the reconstructed luma samples of the block and a probability density function such that a given amount of reconstructed luma samples of the block has a value within the range (Paragraphs [00347]-[-00348] discloses determining a threshold value, from an average to represent a limit to stay within (i.e., a range).).
Regarding claim 35, TAKESHI shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein the one or more processors being operable to determine the at least one cross-component model comprises the one or more processors being operable to:
determine a first value from at least one of the reconstructed luma samples of the block or the selected reference luma samples (Paragraph [00316], decoded image of a luma component.), and
classify the selected reference luma samples based on the first value (Paragraphs [00319]-[00328] disclose classifying luma components with both the same and other regional locations to that of a reference chroma sample.),
wherein a cross-component model is determined for each class based on the selected reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples of the class (Paragraphs [00319]-[00328] disclose the various models generated.).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKESHI in view of Huo et al., (EP 3 910 951 A1) referred to as HUO hereinafter.
Regarding claim 11, TAKESHI shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, however failing to but HUO does further show wherein the first value is determined as an average of the reconstructed luma samples of the block or an average of the selected reference luma samples (Paragraphs [0078]-[0082] classification based on the mean of the reconstructed luma of the current block).
Both TAKESHI and HUO are analogous to the claimed invention in that they deal with cross-component modeling in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables the system to realize a reduction in computational complexity and improved precision of the prediction model (HUO: Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, TAKESHI shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, however failing to but HUO does further show wherein the first value is determined from the reconstructed luma samples of the block and the selected reference luma samples (Paragraphs [0078]-[0082] classification based on the mean of the reconstructed luma of the current block and paragraph [0016] first color component is luma).
Both TAKESHI and HUO are analogous to the claimed invention in that they deal with cross-component modeling in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables the system to realize a reduction in computational complexity and improved precision of the prediction model (HUO: Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, TAKESHI shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, however failing to but HUO does further show wherein selecting, in the reference area of the block, reference luma samples and co-located chroma samples, is further based on a subset of reference luma samples (Paragraphs [0077]-[0079] N subsets defined by at least one threshold, the value of the threshold relates to the first color component reconstruction values.).
Both TAKESHI and HUO are analogous to the claimed invention in that they deal with cross-component modeling in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it enables the system to realize a reduction in computational complexity and improved precision of the prediction model (HUO: Paragraph [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18, 22, 25 and 36-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights