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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because all diagrams and features in Figure 4 are required to be distinctly labeled to indicate contents or function with legends (37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), 1.84(o)) since they are necessary for understanding of the drawing. Correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of inclusion of legal phraseology such as “disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 29-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francois et al (2022/0078405).
Regarding claim 29 and corresponding claims 37-39, 47, and 48, Francois discloses a method comprising receiving video data (e.g. CCLM video block), including data representing a video data region (e.g. [0049], Eq. 1); obtaining at least one correction value CP, correcting a coefficient of a plurality of coefficients defining a cross-component (CC) model ([0107]), the CC model is used for predicting a chroma sample (e.g. predc)from the video data region based on a corresponding luma sample (e.g. Eq. 1); and encoding, into a bitstream coding the video data, the at least one correction value [0114] and an index [0115] indicating the coefficient being corrected.
Regarding claims 30 and 40, further comprising: obtaining a correction (e.g. negative correction) to an offset coefficient of the CC model based on the at least one correction value [0118].
Regarding claims 31 and 41, wherein the at least one correction value comprises: a relative correction value CP that, when multiplied by the coefficient, results in a corrected coefficient [0110].
Regarding claims 32 and 42, wherein the at least one correction value comprises: a relative correction value CP that, when multiplied by the coefficient and by a precision adjustment (e.g. a), results in a corrected coefficient [0110].
Regarding claims 34 and 44, wherein the at least one correction value comprises a correction value for each of the plurality of coefficients (e.g. 4 correction modes) of the CC model [0132].
Regarding claims 35 and 45, wherein the at least one correction value comprises one correction value CP used to correct more than one (e.g. additive and negative) of the plurality of coefficients of the CC model [0116]-[0118].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 33, 36, 43, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois et al in view of Ramasubramonian et al (2020/0154115).
Although Francois discloses a correction value CP to correct coefficients of the CC model, it is noted Francois differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose a non-linear model and a largest coefficient as specified in claims 33, 36, 43, and 46. Ramasubramonian et al however, in Figure 3, teaches the concept of such well-known non-linear model ([0078], Eq. 2), wherein at least one correction value is used to correct the largest coefficients (e.g. Threshold) of the plurality of coefficients of the CC model [0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having both the references of Francois et al and Ramasubramonian et al before him/her, to incorporate the CC model correction technique as taught by Ramasubramonian et in the method of Francois et al in order to accurately correct values in a linear model as well as multi-model prediction models.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
12542916 discloses Apparatus, A Method And A Computer Program For Cross-component Parameter Calculation
12542903 discloses Chroma Quantization In Video Coding
12542918 discloses Two-layered Image Compression For Text Content
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 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.
/Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485