Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/28/2025 and 02/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
First Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 16-17, 19-21, 25-26, 28-30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2017/0244975) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Huang”.
As per claim 16, Huang discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (paragraph 0073), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving an image block unit of a frame (paragraph 0070), the image block unit comprising samples in a first chrominance channel, a second chrominance channel and one luminance channel (paragraphs 0015);
defining a co-located reference area over luminance samples of the luminance channel (see FIG. 1A) and performing motion-compensated prediction for the luminance samples to obtain co-located predicted luminance samples (see FIG. 2, block 220 and paragraph 0011);
defining a co-located reference area over chroma samples of the first chrominance channel (see FIG. 1B) and performing motion-compensated prediction to obtain first motion-compensated chrominance samples (see FIG. 2, block 232 and paragraph 0011);
defining a co-located reference area over chroma samples of the second chrominance channel (see FIG. 1B) and performing motion-compensated prediction to obtain second motion-compensated chrominance samples (see FIG. 2, block 234 and paragraph 0011);
obtaining a first mapping function that maps the luminance samples into the first chrominance samples using the first motion-compensated chrominance samples and the co-located predicted luminance samples (see FIG. 4, block 440);
obtaining a second mapping function that maps the luminance samples into the second chrominance samples using the second motion- compensated chrominance samples and the co-located predicted luminance samples (see FIG. 4, block 450);
reconstructing a luminance residual (paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0047); and
obtaining a first chrominance prediction by using the first mapping function and the luminance residual, and a second chrominance prediction by using the second mapping function and the luminance residual (see the equation in paragraph 0051, which is based on mapping functions and luminance residual as taught in paragraph 0054).
As per claim 17, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: down-sampling the co-located reference luminance samples to match a sub- sampled chrominance grid (paragraphs 0062-0063).
As per claim 19, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: using either the first mapping function or the second mapping function to map the luminance samples to the first chrominance samples or to the second chrominance samples; or to map the first chrominance samples to the second chrominance samples (see FIG. 4, blocks 440 and 450).
As per claim 20, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: signaling a use of a cross-component residual model from an encoder to a decoder at transform unit; prediction unit; coding unit; coding tree unit; slice; frame; or sequence level (paragraph 0042 and claim 16).
As per claim 21, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: clipping or spatially filtering the luminance residual before applying the cross- component model (paragraphs 0017, 0019 and 0040; see also claim 13).
As per claim 25, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: using different mapping functions based on one or more thresholds derived on the luminance channel, luminance residual, or chrominance channels (paragraphs 0057-0058).
As per claim 26, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 19 are applicable for claim 26.
As per claim 28, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: mapping the first chrominance samples to the second chrominance samples (paragraph 0054).
As per claim 29, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 16 are applicable for claim 29.
As per claim 30, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 17 are applicable for claim 30.
As per claims 32-34, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 19-21 are applicable for claims 32-34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries 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.
8. Claim(s) 18 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2017/0244975) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2018/0359480) hereinafter “Xiu”.
As per claim 18, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: filtering the co-located reference luminance samples with a one-dimensional filter or a two-dimensional filter (paragraph 0018); however, Huang does not explicitly disclose performing texture analysis during the filtering process, wherein the texture analysis comprises a gradient calculation for the luminance samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Xiu discloses performing texture analysis during the filtering process, wherein the texture analysis comprises a gradient calculation for the luminance samples (paragraph 0072, the high-pass filters would not be applied to the prediction samples in flat areas, which could reduce encoding/decoding complexity. Whether the region is flat or not can be determined based on motion compensated luma samples. One method is to calculate the average magnitude of gradients within the region using motion compensated luma samples. If the average magnitude of gradients is smaller than the threshold, then the region may be classified as a flat region and the enhancement filtering may not be applied in the region. The threshold value may be pre-determined or may be selected adaptively based on the average gradient in reference pictures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Huang in view of Xiu, by performing texture analysis during the filtering process. Thus, improving the efficiency of motion compensated prediction and enhance the quality of temporal prediction (Xiu, paragraphs 0003 and 0040).
As per claim 31, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 18 are applicable for claim 31.
9. Claim(s) 22-24, 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2017/0244975) in view of Biatek et al. (US 2020/0413049) hereinafter “Biatek”.
As per claim 22, Huang discloses the apparatus according to claim 16; however, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: determining a type and amount of filtering to be applied to the luminance residual separately for the first chrominance samples and the second chrominance samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Biatek discloses determining a type and amount of filtering to be applied to the luminance residual separately for the first chrominance samples and the second chrominance samples (paragraph 0201).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Huang, with those of Biatek, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to down-sampling luma samples for predicting chroma samples using cross-component prediction model, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Huang and Biatek used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claims 23 and 24, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 22 are applicable for claims 23 and 24; see also (paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0040 and 0058; claim 13) of Huang.
As per claim 27, Biatek discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform at least one of the following: up-sampling the input of the mapping functions to match a luminance grid; and up-sampling the output of the mapping functions to match a luminance grid (paragraph 0376, The video coder may apply linear interpolation to 32×32 (510) to generate the output full resolution luma prediction that can be used in CCLM prediction 512; FIG. 10).
As per claim 35, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 22 are applicable for claim 35.
Second rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 16-27 and 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiu et al. (US 2018/0359480).
As per claim 16, Xiu discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (paragraph 0102), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving an image block unit of a frame, the image block unit comprising samples in a first chrominance channel, a second chrominance channel and one luminance channel (FIG. 5; paragraphs 0049 and 0051);
defining a co-located reference area over luminance samples of the luminance channel (see FIGs. 4A-C and paragraph 0019) and performing motion-compensated prediction for the luminance samples to obtain co-located predicted luminance samples (FIG. 5 and paragraph 0049, A motion estimation and compensation module 562 generates the motion compensated signal, which includes Y_pred, by matching the current block to one block in the reference picture using the optimal MV);
defining a co-located reference area over chroma samples of the first chrominance channel (see FIGs. 4A-C and paragraph 0019) and performing motion-compensated prediction to obtain first motion-compensated chrominance samples (FIG. 5 and paragraph 0049, A motion estimation and compensation module 562 generates the motion compensated signal, which includes Cb_pred, by matching the current block to one block in the reference picture using the optimal MV);
defining a co-located reference area over chroma samples of the second chrominance channel (see FIGs. 4A-C and paragraph 0019) and performing motion-compensated prediction to obtain second motion-compensated chrominance samples (FIG. 5 and paragraph 0049, A motion estimation and compensation module 562 generates the motion compensated signal, which includes Cr_pred, by matching the current block to one block in the reference picture using the optimal MV);
obtaining a first mapping function that maps the luminance samples into the first chrominance samples using the first motion-compensated chrominance samples and the co-located predicted luminance samples (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cb_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cb’_pred; see also paragraph 0064);
obtaining a second mapping function that maps the luminance samples into the second chrominance samples using the second motion- compensated chrominance samples and the co-located predicted luminance samples (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cr_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cr’_pred; see also paragraph 0064);
reconstructing a luminance residual (see equation (7) in paragraph 0052); and
obtaining a first chrominance prediction by using the first mapping function and the luminance residual (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cb_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cb’_pred, wherein the Cb filter coefficients used by the high-pass filtering are based on the difference between Y.sub.org(x,y) and Y′(x,y) as taught in paragraph 0052), and a second chrominance prediction by using the second mapping function and the luminance residual (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cr_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cr’_pred, wherein the Cr filter coefficients used by the high-pass filtering are based on the difference between Y.sub.org(x,y) and Y′(x,y) as taught in paragraph 0052).
As per claim 17, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: down-sampling the co-located reference luminance samples to match a sub- sampled chrominance grid (see FIGs. 4A-C and paragraph 0045, only high-frequency information of the luma component are used).
As per claim 18, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: filtering the co-located reference luminance samples with a one-dimensional filter or a two-dimensional filter (FIG. 9 shows that high-pass filtering is applied to Y_pred); and performing texture analysis during the filtering process, wherein the texture analysis comprises a gradient calculation for the luminance samples (paragraph 0072, the high-pass filters would not be applied to the prediction samples in flat areas, which could reduce encoding/decoding complexity. Whether the region is flat or not can be determined based on motion compensated luma samples. One method is to calculate the average magnitude of gradients within the region using motion compensated luma samples. If the average magnitude of gradients is smaller than the threshold, then the region may be classified as a flat region and the enhancement filtering may not be applied in the region. The threshold value may be pre-determined or may be selected adaptively based on the average gradient in reference pictures).
As per claim 19, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: using either the first mapping function or the second mapping function to map the luminance samples to the first chrominance samples or to the second chrominance samples; or to map the first chrominance samples to the second chrominance samples (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cb_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cb’_pred; see also paragraph 0064).
As per claim 20, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: signaling a use of a cross-component residual model from an encoder to a decoder at transform unit; prediction unit; coding unit; coding tree unit; slice; frame; or sequence level (paragraph 0049, a flag motion_compensated_filtering_flag may be signaled at a given block level (e.g., CTU, CU, or PU level) to indicate whether the proposed filtering is applied to the current block for motion compensation).
As per claim 21, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: clipping or spatially filtering the luminance residual before applying the cross- component model (FIG. 9 shows that high-pass filtering is applied for Y_pred).
As per claim 22, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: determining a type and amount of filtering to be applied to the luminance residual separately for the first chrominance samples and the second chrominance samples (Cr filter coefficients and Cb filter coefficients are determined as shown in FIG. 9; see also paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0068-0069).
As per claims 23 and 24, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 22 are applicable for claims 23 and 24.
As per claim 25, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: using different mapping functions based on one or more thresholds derived on the luminance channel, luminance residual, or chrominance channels (paragraph 0052, The filter coefficients f.sub.L(x,y) can be selected using, for example, linear minimum mean square error (LMMSE) estimation. Specifically, the LMMSE estimation method takes the original motion compensated signal Y(x,y) and the original signal Y.sub.org(x,y) as input training set and optimizes the filter coefficients so that the difference between Y.sub.org(x,y) and Y′(x,y) is minimized).
As per claim 26, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: mapping chrominance samples to luminance samples (see FIG. 9, which shows motion-compensated chrominance samples, Cb_pred, and the co-located predicted luminance samples, Y’_pred, as part of the function that generate Cb’_pred; see also paragraph 0064).
As per claim 27, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform at least one of the following: up-sampling the input of the mapping functions to match a luminance grid; and up-sampling the output of the mapping functions to match a luminance grid (luma prediction region is extended as taught in paragraphs 0065 and 0066; see FIG. 12).
As per claims 29-35, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 16-22 are applicable for claims 29-35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries 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.
14. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (US 2018/0359480)in view of Choi et al. (US 2023/0291914) hereinafter “Choi”.
As per claim 28, Xiu discloses the apparatus according to claim 16; however, Xiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: mapping the first chrominance samples to the second chrominance samples.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses mapping the first chrominance samples to the second chrominance samples (FIG. 6A; paragraph 0112).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xiu, with those of Choi, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to cross-component prediction using a linear model, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20140348240-A1, US-20170345187-A1, US-20060188018-A1, US-20150117519-A1, US-20160105657-A1, US-20160323581-A1, US-20200267392-A1, US-20200404298-A1, US-20220329814-A1, US-20150365684-A1, US-20140184740-A1, US-20200275118-A1, US-20160100175-A1, US-20250142063-A1, US-20250175641-A1, US-20150124865-A1, US-20150016512-A1, US-20160219283-A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights