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 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 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.
(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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2021/0400260 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 20, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for video decoding storing a bitstream to be decoded by operations comprising […],” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream/image data and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream. The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording/storage medium storing the claimed bitstream/image data in claims 18-19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream/image data and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream/image data and recording/storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang which recites in Paragraphs [0869]-[0871], wherein the memory (memories) 3004 may be used for storing data, and the output of the coding component 3104 may be either stored, or transmitted via a communication connected, as represented by the component 3106. The stored or communicated bitstream (or coded) representation of the video received at the input 3102.
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 12 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0400260 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0366933 A1) (hereinafter Zhang2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for video decoding [Paragraph [0013], video decoder apparatus implementing a method], comprising:
obtaining, from a video bitstream, a coding unit in a current picture [Paragraph [0871], component 3108 receiving stored coded bitstream from 3106 (and by extension 3102/3104)], wherein the coding unit comprises a luma block and at least one chroma block [Paragraph [0040]-[0043], coding unit containing luma and chroma samples in luma and chroma coding blocks];
selecting a plurality of sets of neighboring samples of the coding unit, determining one or more cross-component prediction models based on the plurality of sets of neighboring samples, wherein the one or more cross-component prediction models comprise at least one selected from a group that include a cross-component linear model (CCLM) and a multi-model linear model (MMLM) [Paragraph [0040]-[0051], [0073]-[0074], [0244], using left neighboring samples, position of chroma samples used to derive the linear model, uses above neighboring samples to derive the linear model or other kinds of methods which utilize luma reconstruction samples to derive chroma prediction blocks];
obtaining 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 [Paragraph [0040]-[0051], [0073]-[0074], [0244], which the chroma samples are predicted based on the reconstructed luma samples of the same CU by using a linear model, uses above neighboring samples to derive the linear model or other kinds of methods which utilize luma reconstruction samples to derive chroma prediction blocks].
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose selecting a plurality of sets of neighboring samples of the coding unit, wherein each of the plurality of sets of neighboring samples comprises a neighboring chroma sample in a reference area and at least one neighboring luma sample corresponding to the neighboring chroma sample, wherein the reference area neighbors a chroma block of the at least one chroma block.
Zhang2 teaches selecting a plurality of sets of neighboring samples of the coding unit, wherein each of the plurality of sets of neighboring samples comprises a neighboring chroma sample in a reference area and at least one neighboring luma sample corresponding to the neighboring chroma sample, wherein the reference area neighbors a chroma block of the at least one chroma block [Paragraph [0296]-[0310] & [1041], Figs. 10-11, parameters of a cross-component linear model (CCLM) based on maximum and minimum values of chroma and luma samples of N groups of chroma and luma samples selected from neighboring luma and chroma samples of the current video block, wherein chroma reference samples in reference areas are shown in Figs. 10-11, adjacent to current block].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to integrate the N groups of chroma/luma samples above, to improve runtime performance and compression efficiency (Zhang2, Paragraph [0068]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 12, apparatus claim 12 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 12 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 & 13-19 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, and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections outlined above.
Claims 2-11 & 13-19 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights