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
Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment on December 23rd, 2024.
Applicant amended the Specification by adding a priority paragraph as the first paragraph of the Specification. Objections will be made to the Originally Filed Specification.
Applicant amended claims 11 – 12, 14 – 16, 27 – 28, 30 – 32, 43 – 44, 46 – 48, 59 -60, and 62 – 64.
Applicant canceled claims 1 – 10, 13, 17 – 26, 29, 33 – 42, 45, 49 – 58, 61, and 65 – 67.
The pending claims are 11 – 12, 14 – 16, 27 – 28, 30 – 32, 43 – 44, 46 – 48, 59 – 60, and 62 – 64 [Page 8].
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (European Application 22305952.8 filed on June 30th, 2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23rd, 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “241” [Figure 2].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “308” [Figure 3].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “no” and “yes” [Figures 15 and 16].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “24” [Page 14 lines 18 – 23 in Figure 2].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “5004” [Page 27 lines 23 – 27 in Figure 5C].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 2, reference character “14” should read as --24-- for consistency with the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence and is not a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the claimed invention (the Abstract is directed towards the not claimed “phase values” features claimed). 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).
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 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 35 line 18, the phrase “sps_num_phase[“ should read as --sps_num_phase]-- for clarity and correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electronic circuitry [is further] configured for …” in claims 43 – 44, 46 – 48, 59 – 60, and 62 – 64.
The Examiner notes the claimed “circuitry” connotes sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 – 12, 14 – 16, 27 – 28, 30 – 32, 43 – 44, 46 – 48, 59 – 60, and 62 – 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations
“A method for encoding …” [Claim 11];
“A method for decoding …” [Claim 27];
“An apparatus for encoding …” [Claim 43]; and
“An apparatus for decoding …” [Claim 59]
have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because preambles are ordinarily not afforded patentable weight and thus the intended use / functional claiming has Indefinite patentable weight and thus the claims are Indefinite regarding the “for” / functional transitional phrase is meant to invoke Functional Analysis (while the Apparatus claims may comprise circuitry, the preamble doesn’t refer to functions of the circuitry or raises circular definition issues thus the claims have Indefinite metes and bounds). The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 12, 14 – 16, 28, 30 – 32, 44, 46 – 48, 60, and 62 – 64, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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) 11 – 12, 27 – 28, 43 – 44, and 59 – 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, et al. (US Patent #11,924,472 B2 referred to as “Deng” throughout), and further in view of Ramasubramonian, et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0154115 A1 referred to as “Ram” throughout).
Note: While the preambles are not ordinarily afforded patentable weight, the Examiner provides some citations against features in the sole interest to expedite prosecution.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 43 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 44 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 27, see claim 59 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 28, see claim 60 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 59, see claim 43 which is the encoding apparatus that in view of at least Deng Figure 10 and associated description the same steps are performed in an encoder and decoder, thus the decoder of Deng (see citations of the “encoder” in claim 43 in which decoders were cited as well) and the remaining citations for the same / similar limitation and reasoning render obvious the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 60, see claim 44 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps of the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 43, Deng teaches cross component model parameters storage techniques including the use of FIFO buffers and considerations of luma components. Ram teaches the use of CCLM (cross-component linear model(s)) which had distance considerations from component, neighboring lines / edges of blocks for selection, and the use of the mean luma value for model selection / availability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deng’s CCLM and selection of parameters with Ram’s teachings of distances and luma characteristic values in selecting CCLM to use. The combination teaches
encoding a current block of a picture [Deng Figure 10 as well as Column 1 lines 61 – 64 (encoding / decoding apparatus) including Ram Figure 7 (details of encoder) or 8 (details of decoder)), Column 31 lines 2 – 41 (encoding blocks), and Column 53 line 29 – Column 54 line 29 (encoding / decoding video with circuitry / processors)] using a cross-component coding tool allowing predicting a chroma sample of the current block from reconstructed luma samples of the current block using a prediction model [Deng Figures 4 – 10 as well as Column 3 line 58 – Column 4 line 32 (LMs using reconstructed luma samples / blocks / components), Column 20 line 62 – Column 21 line 32 (using predicted / reconstructed luma components in collocated / corresponding for CCLM / linear model derivation with obvious variants – combinable with Ram Paragraphs 70 – 74 (CCLM / MMLM using reconstructing luma blocks / samples)), Column 28 line 7 – Column 29 line 15 (cross component coding tool using CCLM and LMCS and linear models for chroma components using luma components)] comprising
electronic circuitry configured for [Deng Figure 10 as well as Column 1 lines 61 – 64 (encoding / decoding apparatus), and Column 53 line 29 – Column 54 line 29 (encoding / decoding video with circuitry / processors)]
obtaining a first set of prediction model parameters for the current block from a second set of prediction model parameters previously computed [Deng Figures 4 – 10 as well as Column 3 line 58 – Column 4 line 32 (modelling parameters computed), Column 12 line 1 – Column 13 line 12 (current mapping a function / modification of previous mapping for the linear model), and Column 32 lines 20 – 67 (history table storing scaling factors for the linear model combinable with Ram Paragraphs 104 – 109 and 124 – 126 (model parameter determinations), and 134 – 138 (indexing models (e.g. Paragraph 136) of a set of models))]
(i) for a neighboring block in a neighborhood of the current block [Deng Figures 4 – 10 as well as Column 21 lines 10 – 54 and Column 24 lines 42 – 56 (neighboring samples to select CCLM parameters in combination with Ram considerations); Ram Figures 4 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 85 – 90 (model parameters determined based on neighboring blocks), 99 – 106 (CCLM / MMLM based on neighboring blocks), 133 – 136 and 209 (neighborhood of neighboring blocks and model determinations)], and
(ii) independently of samples of the current block [Ram Figures 3 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 78 – 82 (independent model determination), 85 – 91 (model derivation independent of chroma component derived such as in Paragraph 87), 116 and 126 (models separately derived)].
The motivation to combine Ram with Deng is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of cross-component prediction in video encoding / decoding [Ram Paragraphs 2 and 5] in order to improve coding efficiency / performance such as by reducing artifacts predicting chroma values [Ram Paragraphs 2 – 3 and 23 – 27 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Deng and Ram which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 44, Deng teaches cross component model parameters storage techniques including the use of FIFO buffers and considerations of luma components. Ram teaches the use of CCLM (cross-component linear model(s)) which had distance considerations from component, neighboring lines / edges of blocks for selection, and the use of the mean luma value for model selection / availability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deng’s CCLM and selection of parameters with Ram’s teachings of distances and luma characteristic values in selecting CCLM to use. The combination teaches
wherein a plurality of sets of prediction model parameters computed independently of samples of the current block are stored in at least one buffer [See (ii) limitation in claim 43 for citations and additionally Deng Figures 4 – 9 as well as Column 4 line 65 – Column 5 line 50 (models independent and multiple models derived) and Column 32 lines 20 – 67 (history table storing scaling factors for the linear model); Ram Paragraphs 104 – 109 (buffers storing the models) and 124 – 126 (model parameter determinations), and 134 – 138 (indexing models (e.g. Paragraph 136) of a set of models combinable with Deng’s FIFO / history buffer implementation)]
and wherein, for obtaining a first set of prediction model parameters for the current block [Deng Figures 4 – 10 as well as Column 3 line 58 – Column 4 line 32 (modelling parameters computed), Column 12 line 1 – Column 13 line 12 (current mapping a function / modification of previous mapping for the linear model), and Column 32 lines 20 – 67 (history table storing scaling factors for the linear model combinable with Ram Paragraphs 104 – 109 and 124 – 126 (model parameter determinations), and 134 – 138 (indexing models (e.g. Paragraph 136) of a set of models for the current block))], the electronic circuitry is configured for [See claim 43 for citations] selecting one set in the plurality of sets stored in the at least one buffer [Deng Figures 4 – 9 as well as Column 4 line 65 – Column 5 line 50 (models independent and multiple models derived) and Column 32 lines 20 – 67 (history table storing scaling factors for the linear model); Ram Paragraphs 104 – 109 (buffers storing the models) and 134 – 138 (indexing models (e.g. Paragraph 136) of a set of models combinable with Deng’s FIFO / history buffer implementation)].
See claim 43 for the motivation to combine Deng and Ram.
Claim(s) 14 – 16, 30 – 32, 46 – 48, and 62 – 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, Ram, and further in view of Francois, et al. (WO2020/176459 referred to as “Fran” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s December 23rd, 2024 IDS as FOR Item #2].
Regarding claim 14, see claim 46 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 47 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 48 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 30, see claim 62 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 31, see claim 63 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 32, see claim 64 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 62, see claim 46 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps of the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 63, see claim 47 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps of the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 64, see claim 48 which is the encoding apparatus performing the same / similar steps of the claimed decoding apparatus.
Regarding claim 46, Deng teaches cross component model parameters storage techniques including the use of FIFO buffers and considerations of luma components. Ram teaches the use of CCLM (cross-component linear model(s)) which had distance considerations from component, neighboring lines / edges of blocks for selection, and the use of the mean luma value for model selection / availability. Fran teaches memory management techniques for the historical tables of Ram and Deng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deng’s CCLM and selection of parameters with Ram’s teachings of distances and luma characteristic values in selecting CCLM to use and to use memory management techniques for storing the parameters taught by Fran. The combination teaches
wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured for determining [See claim 43 for citations], when computing and storing new prediction model parameters responsive to a condition on a frequency of updating prediction model parameters for the cross-component coding tool is fulfilled [Deng Column 32 lines 20 – 67 (history table storing scaling factors for the linear model in which the FIFO buffers have limited number of entries and update); Ram Figure 4 – 6 as well as Paragraphs 133 – 137 (buffer size / number of models to compute / load / store); Fran Figures 11 – 12 (subfigures included) as well as Page 22 lines 7 – 29 (updating the history list to modify Deng up to a maximum number of entries Nh)], the condition is fulfilled responsive to (i) a number of blocks that have been encoded using the cross-component coding tool since a last computation of a set of prediction model parameters is higher than a value [Deng Column 26 lines 29 – 61 (number of blocks processed with CCM / MMLM limited) and Column 32 lines 40 – 67 (refreshing list per slice); Ram Paragraphs 134 - 138 (number of blocks used as neighbors for models to select from see at least Paragraph 135); Fran Figures 11 – 12 and 19 (subfigures included) as well as Page 21 line 13 – Page 22 line 5 (size of VPDU / block sizes a limiting constraint on the history to store / fallback models to use) and Page 22 line 6 – Page 24 line 3 (history list size Nh related to number of blocks to process to combine with the processing of blocks in partitions in Page 27 lines 15 – 31)], or (ii) responsive to all blocks of a group of blocks of the picture had-have been encoded [Deng Column 20 lines 25 – 67 (using CCLM for a slice / group of blocks) and Column 32 lines 40 – 67 (refreshing list per slice); Fran Figures 11 – 12 and 19 (subfigures included) as well as Page 21 line 13 – Page 22 line 5 (size of VPDU / block sizes a limiting constraint on the history to store / fallback models to use) and Page 22 line 6 – Page 24 line 3 (history list size Nh related to number of blocks to process to combine with the processing of blocks in partitions in Page 27 lines 15 – 31 and Page 36 lines 25 – 31 (slice level processing – combinable with Deng))].
See claim 43 for the motivation to combine Deng and Ram.
The motivation to combine Fran with Ram and Deng is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of picture / video coding with independent luma and chroma component processing [Fran Page 1 lines 4 – 18] in order to improve coding efficiency [Fran Page 7 lines 4 – 25 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Deng, Ram, and Fran which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 47, Regarding claim 46, Deng teaches cross component model parameters storage techniques including the use of FIFO buffers and considerations of luma components. Ram teaches the use of CCLM (cross-component linear model(s)) which had distance considerations from component, neighboring lines / edges of blocks for selection, and the use of the mean luma value for model selection / availability. Fran teaches memory management techniques for the historical tables of Ram and Deng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deng’s CCLM and selection of parameters with Ram’s teachings of distances and luma characteristic values in selecting CCLM to use and to use memory management techniques for storing the parameters taught by Fran. The combination teaches
wherein for selecting one set in the plurality of sets stored in the at least one buffer, the electronic circuitry is further configured for [See claim 43 for citations regarding the “circuitry” claimed and see following limitations regarding the “selecting”]:
selecting the one set based on a comparison of at least one characteristic of luma samples used for computing each set of prediction model parameters with a same at least one characteristic of luma samples of the current block [See next limitation for citations],
wherein the at least one characteristic is at least one of a minimum value of the luma samples, a maximum value of the luma samples, or a standard deviation of the luma samples, and an average value of the luma samples [Deng Column 4 lines 1 – 30 (min / max luma values used for model derivation / selection), Column 16 lines 35 – 67 (mean luma used for model derivation / selection), Column 19 lines 18 – 45 (mean luma for selection – combinable with Column 32 lines 40 – 67), Column 27 lines 29 – 65 (mean luma value for LMCS / CCLM model parameter selection) combinable with Ram Paragraphs 127 – 130 (max / min / mean / average luma for model selection) and 133 – 136; Fran Page 22 line 24 – Page 24 line 5 (mean luma value as the characteristic value for selection taught rendering the selection obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)]; or
selecting the one set based on a spatial distance between the samples of the current block and samples used for estimating each set of prediction model parameters [Ram Paragraphs 93 – 94 (distance of samples); Fran Page 22 line 24 – Page 24 line 5 (see the minDist value rendering obvious the spatial distance criteria claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art as the idx0 parameter in the equations is considered a distance as well (one-norm distance) to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 46 for the motivation to combine Deng, Ram, and Fran.
Regarding claim 48, Regarding claim 46, Deng teaches cross component model parameters storage techniques including the use of FIFO buffers and considerations of luma components. Ram teaches the use of CCLM (cross-component linear model(s)) which had distance considerations from component, neighboring lines / edges of blocks for selection, and the use of the mean luma value for model selection / availability. Fran teaches memory management techniques for the historical tables of Ram and Deng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Deng’s CCLM and selection of parameters with Ram’s teachings of distances and luma characteristic values in selecting CCLM to use and to use memory management techniques for storing the parameters taught by Fran. The combination teaches
wherein each buffer is a circular buffer storing a limited number of sets of prediction model parameter, in which a last computed set of prediction model parameters replaces an oldest set of prediction model parameter currently in the circular buffer [Deng Column 20 lines 25 – 67 (using CCLM for a slice / group of blocks) and Column 32 lines 40 – 67 (refreshing list per slice); Fran Figures 11 – 12 and 19 (subfigures included) as well as Page 21 line 13 – Page 22 line 5 (size of VPDU / block sizes a limiting constraint on the history to store / fallback models to use) and Page 22 line 6 – Page 24 line 3 (see updating model stored following the same claimed rule (replace oldest model with the new one into the history list thus an obvious variant of the claimed circular buffer to one of ordinary skill in the art) and history list size Nh as the limited number of sets to process to combine with the processing of blocks in partitions in Page 27 lines 15 – 31 and Page 36 lines 25 – 31 (slice level processing – combinable with Deng))].
See claim 46 for the motivation to combine Deng, Ram, and Fran.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ghaznavi Youvalari, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0056017 A1 referred to as “Ghaz” throughout) in Paragraphs 232 – 240 and 246 – 250 renders obvious many of the buffer management techniques in claims 47 and 48 to one of ordinary skill in the art.
References considered as possibly raising ODP issues based on amendments made to the claims: Naser, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0267297 A1 referred to as “Naser” throughout); Lo Bianco, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0373825 A1 referred to as “Lo” throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487