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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 11, 13, 18, and 20 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Hereafter, “Huang”) [US 2024/0430420 A1] in view of LIM, WOONG et al. (Hereafter, “Lim”) [WO 2024/215155 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Huang discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium of an electronic device storing one or more computer-executable instructions for decoding video data, the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor of the electronic device ([0042] Video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 each may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder and/or decoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), discrete logic, software, hardware, firmware or any combinations thereof. When the techniques are implemented partially in software, a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure. Each of video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may be included in one or more encoders or decoders, either of which may be integrated as part of a combined encoder/decoder (CODEC) in a respective device. A device including video encoder 200 and/or video decoder 300 may implement video encoder 200 and/or video decoder 300 in processing circuitry such as an integrated circuit and/or a microprocessor. Such a device may be a wireless communication device, such as a cellular telephone, or any other type of device described herein.), causing the electronic device to: receive the video data ([0032] memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200 and input to video decoder 300); determine, from an image frame of the video data, a chroma block unit and a luma collocated block that is collocated with the chroma block unit ([0127] For example, co-located luma block 1002 may be co-located with current block 1000. Current block 1000 may be a chroma block corresponding to co-located luma block 1002.); determine a first luma collocated vector of the luma collocated block ([0127] block vector 1004 of co-located luma block 1002); determine, from the image frame, a first luma candidate block based on the first luma collocated vector of the luma collocated block ([0127] reference area in luma (e.g., reference luma 1006); ([0127] For example, video encoder 200—or video decoder 300 may determine a block vector 1008 corresponding to block vector 1004 to determine reference area (e.g. reference chroma 1010).); derive a cross-component filter based on the first luma relocated block and the chroma relocated block ([0127] Then the reference area in luma (e.g., reference luma 1006), and a corresponding area in a chroma channel (e.g., reference chroma 1010), may be used to calculate the CCCM parameters.); and reconstruct the chroma block unit based on the luma collocated block using the cross- component filter ([0127] The prediction uses the calculated model parameters and co-located luma samples when performing CCCM prediction.).
Huang fails to explicitly disclose the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block and a first luma relocated block based on the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block.
However, Lim discloses FIG. 105 illustrates a method of deriving an AR-BVP according to an example. FIG. 106 illustrates five locations within B n according to an example. Auto Located Block Vector Prediction (AR-BVP) may be introduced into the IBC Merge/AMVP candidate list configuration. As shown in FIG. 105, the guiding block vector BV0,1 associated with current block B0 may indicate reference block B1. If B1 has a BV pointing to a reference block B2, denoted BV1,2, a given BV0,2 may be defined as an AR-BVP guided by BV0,1. [See Lim, 3217-3221]. The above embodiments may be performed for each of the luma signal and the chroma signal. The above embodiments may be equally performed for the luma signal and the chroma signal. [See Lim, 3350].
Thus, Lim discloses Auto Located Block Vector Prediction (AR-BVP) which includes the determination of a guiding block vector from the current block which determines a reference block, wherein the reference block has a block vector to another reference block. Lim discloses that the embodiments in the specification (i.e., AR-BVP) can be performed for luma and chroma signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang’s block vector guided CCCM for the luma and chroma channels with the auto located block vector prediction as taught by Lim in order to improve block vector candidates, performance of the overall system, and encoding/decoding efficiency [See Lim].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor of the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to: determine, from the image frame, a second luma candidate block based on the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block; determine a second luma candidate vector of the second luma candidate block; and determine, from the image frame, the first luma relocated block further based on the second luma candidate vector of the second luma candidate block.
Lim discloses wherein the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor of the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to: determine, from the image frame, a second luma candidate block based on the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block ([Fig. 105] reference block B2 is determined based on block vector BV1,2 from reference block B1); determine a second luma candidate vector of the second luma candidate block ([Fig. 105] block vector BV2,3 from reference block B2); and determine, from the image frame, the first luma relocated block further based on the second luma candidate vector of the second luma candidate block ([Fig. 105] reference block B3 is determined based on block vector BV2,3 from reference block B2 [3350] The above embodiments may be performed for each of the luma signal and the chroma signal. The above embodiments may be equally performed for the luma signal and the chroma signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang’s block vector guided CCCM for the luma and chroma channels with the auto located block vector prediction as taught by Lim in order to improve block vector candidates, performance of the overall system, and encoding/decoding efficiency [See Lim].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block indicates the first luma relocated block from the first luma candidate block.
Lim discloses wherein the first luma candidate vector of the first luma candidate block indicates the first luma relocated block from the first luma candidate block ([Fig. 105 and 3217-3221] block vector BV1,2 indicates reference block B2 [3350] The above embodiments may be performed for each of the luma signal and the chroma signal. The above embodiments may be equally performed for the luma signal and the chroma signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang’s block vector guided CCCM for the luma and chroma channels with the auto located block vector prediction as taught by Lim in order to improve block vector candidates, performance of the overall system, and encoding/decoding efficiency [See Lim].
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Huang discloses wherein determining, from the image frame, the chroma relocated block corresponding to the first luma relocated block comprises: determining, from the image frame, a chroma collocated block, collocated with the first luma relocated block, as the chroma relocated block ([0127] For example, video encoder 200—or video decoder 300 may determine a block vector 1008 corresponding to block vector 1004 to determine reference area (e.g. reference chroma 1010).).
Claim 8 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in device form rather than non-transitory machine-readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in device form rather than non-transitory machine-readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in device form rather than non-transitory machine-readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim 12 lists all the same elements of claim 6, but in device form rather than non-transitory machine-readable medium form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 14 lists all the same elements of claim 8, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claim 15 lists all the same elements of claim 9, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 16 lists all the same elements of claim 10, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Claim 19 lists all the same elements of claim 12, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 12 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Lim in further view of Vishwanath et al. (Hereafter, “Vishwanath”) [US 2024/0388692 A1].
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein deriving the cross-component filter based on the first luma relocated block and the chroma relocated block comprises: determining a luma scaled block based on the first luma relocated block using one of a down-sampling filter and a sub-sampling filter; and deriving the cross-component filter based on the luma scaled block and the chroma relocated block.
Vishwanath discloses wherein deriving the cross-component filter based on the first luma relocated block and the chroma relocated block comprises: determining a luma scaled block based on the first luma relocated block using one of a down-sampling filter and a sub-sampling filter; and deriving the cross-component filter based on the luma scaled block and the chroma relocated block ([0144] The CCLM parameters (a and B) are derived with at most four neighbouring chroma samples and their corresponding down-sampled luma samples.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Huang with the use of down-sampled luma samples and chroma samples for the derivation of the CCLM parameters as taught by Vishwanath in order to improve the cross-component prediction [See Vishwanath].
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in device (encoding) form rather than non-transitory machine-readable medium (decoding) form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights