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 01/09/2025 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 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) 9 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 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) "the boundary,” 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).
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20210314575) (hereinafter Li) in view of Xu et al. (US 20200099949) (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches A video coding method comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video; retrieving a set of reconstructed component samples for a first set of pixel positions that are required for deriving a component prediction model of the current block; generating a set of padded component samples for a second set of pixel positions that are required for deriving the component prediction model based on the retrieved set of reconstructed component samples; deriving the component prediction model by using the retrieved set of reconstructed component samples and the generated set of padded component samples (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 122 and 136-140 regarding component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- in combination with *REF2 below this processes of CCLM parameters and padding may be performed in the encoding or decoding method); and
However, Li does not explicitly teach encoding or decoding as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Xu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches encoding or decoding the current block by using the component prediction model to generate a predictor for the current block (see Xu paragraph 10 regarding encoding or decoding- in combination with Li's using the component prediction model to generate a predictor for the current block, Li's method may be used for encoding or decoding).
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 Li to include the teaching of Xu so that in combination with Li's using the component prediction model to generate a predictor for the current block, Li's method may be used for encoding or decoding.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide a method for the transmission of data that improves efficiency and time (see Xu paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein generating a padded component sample comprises replicating one of (i) a nearest retrieved reconstructed component sample, (ii) a predefined value, or (iii) a middle value defined by a bit-depth of a current sample (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 122 and 136-140 regarding component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- the padded samples for lines 1-3 are from line 0, a nearest reconstructed sample).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the second set of pixel positions are designated as having unavailable reconstructed samples based on a boundary (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 122 and 136-140 regarding component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- lines 1-3 are unavailable).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the second set of pixel positions correspond to component samples inside the current block (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 122 and 136-140 regarding component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- therefore the outside positions end up corresponding to samples inside the current block, they are not unrelated to them).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the second set of pixel positions correspond to component samples inside a left-above neighboring area of the current block (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 122-125 and 136-140 regarding component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- top left neighboring samples may be used).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the second set of pixel positions are outside a data pipeline unit that encompasses the current block (see Xu regarding neighboring block information of other reconstructed CTU being outside the CTU that encompasses the current block and using a buffer that information- in combination with Li, the second position may include pixel positions outside of CTU).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide a method for the transmission of data that improves efficiency and time (see Xu paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the boundary is that of a buffer storing one or more rows of reconstructed coding tree units (CTUs) (see Xu regarding neighboring block information of other reconstructed CTU being outside the CTU that encompasses the current block and using a buffer that information- in combination with Li, the second position may include pixel positions outside of CTU).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide a method for the transmission of data that improves efficiency and time (see Xu paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the component prediction model is derived by corresponding target component samples and predicted component samples, each predicted component sample generated based on a collocated component sample and a set of surrounding component samples (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 110--125 and 136-140 regarding CCLM component prediction to predict chroma samples using collocated and surrounding luma samples, component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein surrounding component samples at pixel positions beyond the boundary are replaced by padded component samples (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 110--125 and 136-140 regarding CCLM component prediction to predict chroma samples using collocated and surrounding luma samples, component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the target component samples are chroma samples, wherein the collocated and surrounding component samples are luma samples (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 110--125 and 136-140 regarding CCLM component prediction to predict chroma samples using collocated and surrounding luma samples, component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the target component samples and the collocated component samples are samples of a reference area neighboring the current block (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 110--125 and 136-140 regarding CCLM component prediction to predict chroma samples using collocated and surrounding luma samples, component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples- using references samples neighboring the current block).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Li and Xu teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Li and Xu teaches wherein the predictor of the current block comprises predicted chroma samples that are generated by applying the component prediction model to luma samples of the current block (see Li figures 10A and 13 and paragraphs 110--125 and 136-140 regarding CCLM component prediction to predict chroma samples using collocated and surrounding luma samples, component samples for a set of pixel positions to derive parameters for CCLM, padding component samples for a second set of pixel positions based on a neighboring reconstructed set of samples, where the CCLM model parameters are derived/noted in the reconstructed component samples).
Independent claim(s) 13 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit as an electronic apparatus taught by Li paragraph 22, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 14 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding the decoding method, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
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