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 .
Claim Interpretation
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Claim 19 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors”. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), this claim is merely machine-readable media. The Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being formed and then stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors 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, claim 19 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer-readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites “performing the method for video coding according to claim 1 to generate a bitstream.” However, Claim 1 does not generate a bitstream. This renders Claim 21 unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHOI et al., (US 20250267285 A1).
Claim 19 has been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because claim 19 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream to be decoded by a video decoding method”. As such, claim 19 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 19 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded should not be given patentable weight.
CHOI, which is analogous art, discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information [¶0001 teaches: a recording medium for storing a bitstream]. As such, CHOI clearly anticipates the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, CHOI et al., (US 2025/0267285), teaches an image decoding method comprising: deriving a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) coefficient based on an intra prediction mode of a current chroma block being a CCCM mode, determining a co-located luma sample in a co-located luma block corresponding to a current chroma sample in the current chroma block and neighboring luma samples of the co-located luma sample, deriving at least one representative neighboring luma sample based on the neighboring luma samples, and generating a prediction sample of the current chroma sample based on the representative neighboring luma sample and the CCCM coefficient; and MA et al., (From IDS: US 2021/0136409) which teaches an apparatus configured to receive a video signal partitioned into a chroma block and a first neighboring luma block. The apparatus also includes encoding prediction information for chroma samples of the chroma block into a bitstream. The prediction information for the chroma samples is determined via intra-prediction based on down-sampled neighboring luma samples. The down-sampled neighboring luma samples are generated from a single row of luma samples from the first neighboring luma block. A bitstream including the prediction information for the chroma samples is transmitted to support decoding and display of the chroma samples. These references, either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious especially the underlined limitations of claim 10 (and similar method limitations of claim 1) including [a]n apparatus for video decoding, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations comprising: obtaining, from a video bitstream, a coding unit in a current picture, wherein the coding unit comprises a luma block and at least one chroma block; and in response to a determination that reconstructed luma samples in the luma block are not to be down-sampled: determining one or more cross-component prediction models based on a luma filter, wherein the one or more cross-component prediction models comprise a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM); obtaining, based on the luma filter, at least one reconstructed luma sample in the luma block that corresponds to a chroma sample in the at least one chroma block; and applying at least one of the one or more cross-component prediction models to the at least one reconstructed luma sample to predict the chroma sample.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485