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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 31 be found allowable, claim 40 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 23-25 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23 and 32, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) " the gradient value,” which is/are not pre-established in this claim or any preceding claims on which this claim is dependent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It is apparent however, that claim 23 and 32 are intended to be dependent on claim 22 and 31 respectively, so claims 23 and 22 will be interpreted in light of a limitation about an equation of a CCCM model including a gradient value of the luma component sample.
Claim(s) 24-25 and 33-34 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 23 and 32, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Astola (US 20250373846) (hereinafter Astola).
Regarding claim 39, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Astola, as Astola paragraph 275 discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 21, 27-30, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astola (US 20250373846) (hereinafter Astola) in view of Choi et al. (US 20250267285) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 21, Astola teaches predict, based on a luma component sample of a current block, a chroma component sample corresponding to the luma component sample, predict the current block based on a predicted value of the chroma component sample, and wherein the predicted value of the chroma component sample is obtained based on an equation using CCCM (Convolutional cross-component intra prediction model) (see Astola paragraphs 4-7, 163, 183, 191-193, and 217 regarding predicting a chroma sample based on a luma sample of the current block, predicting a current block based on the predicted chroma sample value, where the predicted value is based on a CCCM calculation).
However, Astola does not explicitly teach a device as needed for the limitations of claim 21.
Choi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches A video signal decoding device comprising a processor (see Choi paragraphs 78 and 159 regarding a processor for performing CCCM mode- in combination with Astola, the processor may perform the CCCM mode method of Astola), wherein the processor is configured to:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Astola to include the teaching of Choi so that in combination with Astola, the processor may perform the CCCM mode method of Astola.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the processing ability of a video coding device (see Choi paragraphs 78 and 159).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches wherein the equation includes a non-linear term (see Astola paragraphs 4-7, 163, 183, 191-193, and 217 regarding predicting a chroma sample based on a luma sample of the current block, predicting a current block based on the predicted chroma sample value, where the predicted value is based on a CCCM calculation where any non-linear term may be including modes like chroma DM).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches wherein the equation includes the CCCM and a non-linear mode (see Astola paragraphs 4-7, 163, 183, 191-193, and 217 regarding predicting a chroma sample based on a luma sample of the current block, predicting a current block based on the predicted chroma sample value, where the predicted value is based on a CCCM calculation where any non-linear term may be including modes like chroma DM).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 28, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Astola and Choi teaches wherein the non-linear mode is at least one of a chroma DM mode and/or an intra prediction mode (see Astola paragraphs 4-7, 163, 183, 191-193, and 217 regarding predicting a chroma sample based on a luma sample of the current block, predicting a current block based on the predicted chroma sample value, where the predicted value is based on a CCCM calculation where any non-linear term may be including modes like chroma DM).
Independent claim(s) 30 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 21, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 36-38 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 27-29, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 39 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 21, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22, 26, 31, 35, and 40 is/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 (though claim 40 would be objected to for being a duplicate of claim 31). Claim(s) 23-25 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would also be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 22 contains the limitations regarding where an equation using CCCM (convolutional cross-component intra prediction model) comprises a term for a gradient value of the luma component sample. Claim 26 contains the limitations regarding where an equation using CCCM (convolutional cross-component intra prediction model) comprises a term for a median value of bitDepth. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Claim(s) 23, 31, 32, 35, and 40 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 22 and 26. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Astola (US 20250373846), Choi et al. (US 20250267285), Tsai et al. (US 20250310513), Lo Bianco et al. (US 20250373825), Bordes et al. (US 20250386037), Lim et al. (US 20260006187), Lainema (US 20250330622), Li et al. (US 20230217026), Ghaznavi Youvalari et al. (US 20260006248), Aminlou et al. (US 20250350747), Yang et al. (US 20230412801), Bordes et al. (US 20260012573), Kim et al. (US 20260052249) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art, especially Yang and Li, which represent the best prior art, teach methods where CCCM and gradients of a luma sample occur in the same method or CCCM and median bitdepth are considered within a same overall general encoding process, they are explicitly taught to either occur as alternatives to each other, or in a way that is unrelated to each other, such that the prior art teaches away from using either luma sample gradients or median bitdepth as actual terms or inputs or factors in a CCCM equation in particular. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483