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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S provisional Patent Application No. 63402944, filed on 8/31/2022, No. 63358172, filed on 7/4/2022, No. 63350764, filed on 6/9/2022 and is hereby incorporated by references.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/19/2024 and 7/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1-4, 10-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al (US 20220070441 A1) in view of YASUGI et al (US 20220070491 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xiu discloses a video decoding method [e.g. FIG. 3], comprising: decoding a bitstream [e.g. bitstream 302] comprising a first flag [e.g. FIG. 3; coding mode inter/intra]; and in response to the first flag having a first value and flag to indicate whether the combined inter and intra mode is applied, determining a gradient of a reconstructed luma block associated with a coding block, and predicting, based on the gradient, a collocated chroma block of the reconstructed luma block; or in response to the first flag having a second value [e.g. FIG. 3, 10-12; [0035 and 0067-0069]; inter/intra prediction], downsampling the reconstructed luma block [e.g. CCLM mode may be applied to prediction of chroma samples, sub-sampled luma reconstruction samples], and predicting the collocated chroma block based on a linear combination of the downsampled reconstructed luma block [e.g. FIG. 10-12; [0052-53 and 0065-0069]; equation (2)], wherein the downsampled reconstructed luma block in the linear combination have different linear parameters [e.g. Parameters α and β may indicate the scaling parameter and the offset of the linear model, respectively], respectively.
Although Xiu discloses predicting chroma block on a linear combination and the gradient analysis may be used to prediction of the current CU, it is noted that Xiu differs to the present invention in that Xiu fails to explicitly disclose the detail of the chroma prediction.
However, YASUGI teaches the well-known concept of predicting the chroma block [e.g. predicting chroma samples by CCLM] based on a linear combination of the gradient and the downsampled reconstructed luma block [e.g. FIG. 11-12; [e.g. FIG. 11-12; [0171-0178 and 0280-0293]; downsampled luma reference image; using gradient of luma and chroma to derive CCLM prediction parameters], wherein the gradient and the downsampled reconstructed luma block in the linear combination have different linear parameters [e.g. a and b].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Xiu to exploit the well-known determining CCLM parameter technique taught by YASUGI as above, in order to provide reduce the amount of memory required for CCLM prediction [See YASUGI; abstract; [0191 and 0327]].
Claim 1, 10 and 19 are method claims and using contingent limitations. MPEP §2111.04(II) states when a method uses contingent claim language and the condition isn’t required in the claim language the BRI of the claim doesn’t require those steps to be performed. There might exist a condition where the first flag doesn’t have either the first or second value so neither steps is required according to claim 1, 10 and 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose the coding block has a non-4:4:4 color format [e.g. Xiu: [0053]; 4:2:0 chroma format; YASUGI: [0171]; chroma format is 4:2:0].
Regarding claim 3, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose the bitstream comprises a second flag [e.g. Xiu: flag to indicate whether the combined inter and intra mode is applied or a flag to indicate CCLM mod is applied], and the method further comprises: determining, based on a value of the second flag, whether the gradient of the reconstructed luma block is used for predicting both Cr and Cb components of the coding block [e.g. Xiu: flag to indicate whether the combined inter and intra mode is applied and a flag to indicate CCLM mod is applied; YASUGI: FIG. 11-12].
Regarding claim 4, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose the bitstream comprises a second flag [e.g. Xiu: flag to indicate whether the combined inter and intra mode is applied or a flag to indicate CCLM mod is applied], and the method further comprises: determining, based on a value of the second flag, whether the gradient of the reconstructed luma block is used for predicting the collocated chroma block [e.g. Xiu: flag to indicate whether the combined inter and intra mode is applied and a flag to indicate CCLM mod is applied; YASUGI: FIG. 11-12; using gradient of luma and chroma to derive CCLM prediction parameters].
Regarding claim 10-13, this is a video encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 1-4 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19-20, this is a method of storing a bitstream that includes same limitation as in claim 1-2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al (US 20220070441 A1) in view of YASUGI et al (US 20220070491 A1) and Wang et al (US 11290736 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose decoding a syntax element of the bitstream [e.g. Xiu: decoding syntax elements], wherein the syntax element indicates a gradient pattern [e.g. YASUGI: FIG. 11-13; chroma intra prediction parameters]; and determining the gradient of the reconstructed luma block using the indicated gradient pattern [e.g. YASUGI: FIG. 13; INTRA_LT_CCLM derives the CCLM prediction parameter using the pixel value of the left neighbouring block], but Xiu and YASUGI fail to explicitly disclose the syntax element is coded by a truncated unary code.
However, Wang teaches the well-known concept of coding the syntax element by a truncated unary code [e.g. FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30, column 16-17; Chroma mode signaled, gradient analysis; CCLM prediction; column 33 lines 29-38; the syntax element may be binarized with fixed length coding, or truncated unary coding, or unary coding, or EGk coding, or coded as a flag].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Xiu to exploit the well-known determining CCLM parameter technique taught by YASUGI and the well-known intra prediction technique taught by Wang as above, in order to provide reduce the amount of memory required for CCLM prediction [See YASUGI; abstract; [0191 and 0327]] and reduced the cross-component redundancy [See Wang; column 14 lines 57-67].
Regarding claim 6, Xiu, YASUGI and Wang further disclose the linear parameters in the linear combination are derived based on chroma samples in a plurality of neighboring lines of the collocated chroma block [e.g. Xiu: FIG. 9-12; YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 13; Wang: FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30].
Regarding claim 7, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose the plurality of neighboring lines comprises 6 neighboring lines [e.g. Xiu: FIG. 9-12; YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 13; Wang: FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30].
Regarding claim 8, Xiu and YASUGI further disclose the coding block is coded in a CCLM_LT mode [e.g. YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 11-14; [0166]; INTRA_LT_CCLM], the plurality of neighboring lines comprises above 6 lines samples and left 6 lines [e.g. Xiu: FIG. 9-12; YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 13; Wang: FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30]; when the coding block is coded in a CCLM_L mode [e.g. YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 11-14; [0166]; INTRA_L_CCLM], the plurality of neighboring lines comprises left 6 lines and below-left 6 lines [e.g. Xiu: FIG. 9-12; YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 13; Wang: FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30]; or when the coding block is coded in a CCLM_T mode [e.g. YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 11-14; [0166]; INTRA_T_CCLM], the plurality of neighboring lines comprises above 6 lines and above-right 6 lines [e.g. Xiu: FIG. 9-12; YASUGI: FIG. FIG. 13; Wang: FIG. 3, 16, 20 and 26-30].
Regarding claim 14-17, this is a video encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 5-8 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 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 the independent claims have been corrected to avoid contingent claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al (US 20210297656 A1).
Chen et al (US 20220239906 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights