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 for the same reasons as set forth in the last OA, dated 2/9/26, 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. For example, elements 401-425, 435-455, and 465-485 need to be labeled with legends.
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) for the same reasons as set forth in Section 8 of the last OA, dated 2/9/26.
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) for the same reasons as set forth in Section 11 of the last OA, dated 2/9/26.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts on p. 9 of the Remarks that Francois fails to disclose an index. However, it is noted that applicant concedes that Francois discloses encoding an index indicating a correction value from possible values. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that Francois’ selection of such correction value, e.g. CP0, would indicate at least one coefficient being corrected by CP0. Thus meeting the claims in their broadest reasonable sense.
Applicant also asserts that Francois fails to disclose an index to a coefficient. However, applicant concedes Francois discloses a correction mechanism for a linear model. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that such model inherently includes coefficients. By selecting the index, the correction value corrects the coefficient in the linear model. Thus meeting the claims in their broadest reasonable sense.
In response to applicant's argument on p. 10 of the Remarks that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant's argument on page 10 of the Remarks that neither Francois nor Ramasubramonian discloses the means to correct a non-linear model, it was clearly stated in the previous office action that Francois discloses all these correction mechanism in [0107]. It is true that Francois does not disclose such correcting values may also be applicable to non-linear models as that claimed by the Applicant. However, examiner does not rely on Francois to disclose such capabilities because they are already taught in Ramasubramonian. Ramasubramonian provides the motivation that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having both references of Francois and Ramasubramonian before him/her, to modify the linear system of Francois to be upgraded as a multi-model system by simply utilizing a correction mechanism to predict chroma sample based on corresponding luma samples to include the same coefficient correction technique and encoding processing equipment as specified in claims 33 and 43. With an upgraded encoding system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in applying subsequent coefficient processing such as correcting and encoding the bitstream, as illustrated in Figure 5 of Francois, since predicting chroma sample based on luma samples are necessary and well known techniques for any video compression system.
Applicant finally asserts on p.10-11 of the Remarks that Ramasubramonian fails to teach correcting the largest coefficient. However, it is noted that Fig. 3 illustrates the correction mechanism is applicable to both Model 1 and Model 2 for the non-linear multi-model. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that the largest coefficient in either model would need to be corrected in the multi-model.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights