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
Claims 1-20 filed on 01/03/2025 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim limitation “a target filter” can’t be determined if “target filter” is within the scope of “a target filter” in the phrase “a cost… and the target filter selection is applied according to the cost of each filter” or the scope of “a target filter” in the phrase “a cost … is derived as one of the following of reconstruction samples”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claimed subject matter is “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream” while the method in the claim generates the bitstream and has no functional relationship to the “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”. Therefore, the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” is intended use as a storage of the “bitstream”. The scope of the method in the claim renders indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biatek et al. (“Biatek”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0413049 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method of video processing, comprising:
generating (i.e. ‘to generate down-sampled luma’) [Fig. 13: ‘704’; Abstract], for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (i.e. video encoder 200) [Fig. 2: ‘video data’; ‘bitstream’], a sample value of a first color component of the video unit (i.e. ‘luma’) [Fig. 13: ‘704’; Abstract; para. 0007, 0029-0031: ‘using reconstructed luma samples … to generate predicted chroma samples’] that is corresponding to a sample of a second color component (i.e. ‘chroma’) [para. 0029-0030, 0054, 0073, 0075, 0076: ‘luma and two chroma’] by applying a plurality of filters to at least one sample of the first color component [Fig. 10; para. 0090, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’]; and
performing the conversion (i.e. video encoder 200) [Fig. 2, 13: showing ‘video data’ encoded ‘bitstream’ based on luma and chroma samples; para. 0029-0031, 0043, 0054, 0100] based on the generated sample value.
Regarding claim 2, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of filters is applied in a process of cross-component linear model prediction of the video unit [Fig. 10; para. 0090, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’], and/or (i.e. optional)
wherein a target filter of the plurality of filters [Fig. 10; para. 0090, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’] is derived as:
F(Y)=(c0×S0+C1×S1+ . . . Cn×Sn+offset)»K, and wherein F(Y) represents the target filter, {Y} represents a set of samples of the first color component, n represents a number of taps of the target filter, ci represents a filter coefficient of filter tap i, Si represents a value of an i-th sample of the first color component involved in represents, i is an integer and offset and K are integers respectively [Eq. (3-6)], or
wherein at least one non-linear item involved in a target filter of the plurality of filters is denoted as: F(Y)=(c0×S0+C1×S1+ . . . Cn×Sn+g (S0, S1, . . . , Sn)+offset)»K, and wherein F(Y) represents the target filter, {Y} represents a set of samples of the first color component, n represents the number of taps of the target filter, ci represents a filter coefficient of filter tap i, Si represents a value of the i-th sample of the first color component involved in represents, and offset and K are integers respectively, g represents a non-linear function, or
wherein a filtered result after the plurality of filters is clipped, or
wherein positions of samples of the first color component involved in a target filter of the plurality of filters depends on a position of the sample of the second color component, or wherein positions of samples of the first color component involved in a target filter of the plurality of filters depends on a color format, or
wherein for K samples of the second color component, a target filter in the plurality of filters generates K corresponding samples of the first color component, wherein K is an integer, or
wherein xL=scaleX*xC+OffX, and/or yL=scale Y*yC+OffY, and wherein xC, yC represent a position of a specific sample in the second color component, xL, yL represent a position of the i-th sample in the first color component involved in a target filer of the plurality of filter corresponding to the specific sample, and scaleX and scaleY are scale factors, respectively, or
wherein a candidate filter set is predefined and at least one candidate filter from the candidate filter set is used to filter samples of the first color component.
Regarding claim 3, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein g(S) is one of: log(S) or S2 or S3 or Sw, or
PNG
media_image1.png
53
52
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein w is an integer, or wherein the filter coefficient of filter tap is an integer, and the filter coefficient of filter tap is positive, negative or zero, or wherein a sum of ci or |ci| is a fixed number, wherein ci represents the filter coefficient of filter tap i, or wherein the offset is equal to 2 K−1, wherein K is an integer, or wherein the color format is one of: 4:4:4 or 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, or wherein for color format being 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 [para. 0054-0055], the target filter comprises a process of down-sampling or down-scaling when the first color component is Y and the second color component is Cb or Cr, or wherein scaleX and scaleY depends on a color format, or wherein OffX and OffY depend on a sequence value (i) of the sample and are integers, or wherein samples in the first color component that is involved in the target filter corresponding to the specific sample in the second color component are at one or more of the following positions: P0:(scaleX*xC, scale Y*yC), P1:(scaleX*xC, scale Y*yC+1), P2:(scaleX*xC, scale Y*yC−1), P3:(scaleX*xC+1, scaleY*yC), P4:(scaleX*xC+1, scaleY*yC+1), P5:(scaleX*xC+1, scaleY*yC−1), P6:(scaleX*xC−1, scaleY*yC), P7:(scaleX*xC−1, scaleY*yC+1), and P8:(scaleX*xC−1, scaleY*yC−1), and wherein P0, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 represent the positions, xC, yC represent a position of a specific sample in the second color component, xL, yL represent a position of the i-th sample in the first color component involved in a target filer of the plurality of filter corresponding to the specific sample, and scaleX and scaleY are scale factors, respectively, or wherein positions of samples involved in the target filter depends on a color format, or wherein positions of samples involved in the target filter depends on at least one of: the first or the second color component, or wherein positions of samples involved in the target filter depends on a position of a current block, or wherein positions of samples involved in the target filter depends on a type of cross component linear model (CCLM) of the video unit, or wherein a filter coefficient of a filter tap at a position is set to be 0, to remove the filter tap at the position, or wherein a sample involved in the target filter is removed from a filtering process if the sample is not available, or wherein coefficients of the at least one of filter candidate are indicated from an encoder to a decoder, or wherein coefficients of the at least one of filter candidate are derived on-line, and/or wherein the candidate filter set is the same to code different color components, or wherein the candidate filter set is different to code different color components, or wherein the candidate filter set depends on coding information of the video unit [].
Regarding claim 4, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein filter selection information regarding the plurality of filters are indicated from an encoder to a decoder [para. 0201: ‘A video encoder … may signal a selection of a down-sampling filter by … (SPS) level flag’].
Regarding claim 5, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein a syntax element [para. 0043, 0048-0049: ‘such as syntax elements having values that describe characteristics and/or processing of video blocks’; ‘HEVC defines various blocks, including coding units (CUs)…’] is indicated in one of the followings to indicate a selected filter: a coding unit (CU) [para. 0100: ‘filter unit 216 may perform … to reduce blockiness artifacts along edges of CUs’], a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a CTU, a slice, or a picture, or
wherein the syntax element is coded with at least one coding context in arithmetic coding (i.e. ‘a CABAC operation’) [para. 0102], or wherein the syntax element is coded with bypass coding (i.e. ‘bypass mode’) [para. 0102], or wherein the syntax element is binarized as one of: a fixed-length code, a unary code, a truncated unary code, or an exponential Golomb code (i.e. ‘Exponential-Golomb’) [para. 0102], or wherein the syntax element is coded in a predictive way, or wherein the syntax element is individually for at least two components, or wherein the syntax element is indicated for at least two components.
Regarding claim 6, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether a coding mode is applied [Fig. 2: ‘Mode Selection Unit’ 202; para. 0095] during a multi-filter approach for a cross-component prediction of the video unit [para. 0365: a 2-tap filter, a 4-tap filter, …, for performing down-sampling processes in both MIP and in CCLM prediction’].
Regarding claim 7, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein whether the coding mode is allowed or not is indicated from an encoder to a decoder in (i.e. ‘syntax elements’) [Fig. 2: ‘Mode Selection Unit’ 202; para. 0048, 0068, 0095: ‘a series of values for syntax elements representative of coding decisions (e.g., coding mode)’] one of the following: a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice headers [para. 0068: ‘Video encoder 200 may further generate syntax data, such as block-based syntax data, picture-based syntax data, and sequence-based syntax data, to video decoder 300, e.g., in a picture header, a block header, a slice header, or other syntax data, such as a sequence parameter set (SPS), picture parameter set (PPS), or video parameter set (VPS)’], a CTU line, a CTU, or a CU, or wherein whether the coding mode is allowed or not depends on coding information, or wherein whether a syntax element is indicated depends on whether a coding mode X is applied.
Regarding claim 8, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein the syntax element is indicated if the coding mode is allowed (i.e. ‘syntax elements’) [Fig. 2: ‘Mode Selection Unit’ 202; para. 0048, 0068, 0095: ‘a series of values for syntax elements representative of coding decisions (e.g., coding mode)’], or
wherein the syntax element is set to a default value if the coding mode is not allowed, or
wherein the syntax element is indicated for one of: a picture, a slice, a CTU, a CU, a PU, or a TU, or
wherein the syntax element is indicated individually for at least two components, and the at least two components are handled differently on whether to perform the multi-filter approach [Fig. 2: ‘Mode Selection Unit’ 202; para. 0095, 0365: a 2-tap filter, a 4-tap filter, …, for performing down-sampling processes in both MIP and in CCLM prediction’], or
wherein the syntax element is indicated for at least two components, and the at least two components are handled in the same way on whether to perform the multi-filter approach, or
wherein the syntax element is coded with at least one coding context in arithmetic coding [para. 0102], or
wherein the syntax element is coded with bypass coding [para. 0102], or
wherein a further syntax element related to the multi-filter approach for the cross-component prediction is indicated after the syntax element [Fig. 2: ‘Mode Selection Unit’ 202; para. 0095, 0365: a 2-tap filter, a 4-tap filter, …, for performing down-sampling processes in both MIP and in CCLM prediction’].
Regarding claim 9, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a filter selection regarding a plurality of filters is derived at both an encoder and a decoder [Fig. 2, 3, 10: Filter Unit 216, 312; para. 0090, 0100-0101, 0108, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’].
Regarding claim 16, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (i.e. video encoder 200) [Fig. 2, 13: showing ‘video data’ encoded ‘bitstream’ based on luma and chroma samples; para. 0029-0031, 0043, 0054, 0100].
Regarding claim 17, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (i.e. video decoder 300) [Fig. 2, 13: showing ‘video data’ encoded ‘bitstream’ based on luma and chroma samples; para. 0029-0031, 0043, 0054, 0100].
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video [para. 0011] which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises [No patentable weight is given to the method. To be given patentable weight, recording medium and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the recording medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium” merely serves as a support for information or data (i.e. a bitstream), no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).]:
generating a sample value of a first color component of a video unit of the video that is corresponding to a sample of a second color component by applying a plurality of filters to at least one sample of the first color component; and generating the bitstream based on the generated sample value.
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 10-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biatek in view of Saeedi et al. (“Saeedi”) [US 10,708,624 B1] in further view of Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasa”) [US 2023/0063062 A1]
Regarding claim 10, Biatek meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 9.
Biatek does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The method of claim 9, wherein a cost is calculated corresponding to a target filter and the target filter selection is applied according to the cost of each filter, or
wherein a cost of a target filter is derived as one of the following of reconstruction samples of the second color component at a first set of positions and corresponding prediction values at the first set of positions: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of squared difference (SSD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), or a mean removal SAD (MR-SAD).
However in the same field of endeavor Saeedi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a cost is calculated corresponding to a target filter and the target filter selection is applied according to the cost of each filter [Fig. 6: ‘608’; ‘610’; ‘612’; col. 10, ll. 60-67; col. 11, ll. 1-22], or
wherein a cost of a target filter is derived as one of the following of reconstruction samples of the second color component at a first set of positions and corresponding prediction values at the first set of positions: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of squared difference (SSD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), or a mean removal SAD (MR-SAD).
Biatek and Saeedi are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Biatek and Saeedi as motivation to select a target filter with lowest cost (i.e. ‘lowest bit usage’) [Saeedi: col. 2, ll. 10-20].
Saeedi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
wherein a cost of a target filter is derived as one of the following of reconstruction samples of the second color component at a first set of positions and corresponding prediction values at the first set of positions: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of squared difference (SSD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), or a mean removal SAD (MR-SAD).
However in the same field of endeavor Srinivasan discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a cost of a target filter is derived as one of the following of reconstruction samples of the second color component at a first set of positions and corresponding prediction values at the first set of positions: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of squared difference (SSD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), or a mean removal SAD (MR-SAD) [para. 0029: ‘Various cost functions may be used … (SATD), … (SSD) …’].
Biatek and Saeedi are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Biatek and Saeedi as motivation to select a target filter with lowest cost (i.e. ‘lowest bit usage’) [Saeedi: col. 2, ll. 10-20].
Regarding claim 11, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the first set of positions include sample positions neighbouring to the video unit [Figs. 4-8, 13: ‘Determine Set of Luma Neighboring Samples’; para. 0195], or
wherein prediction values are derived using a target filter [Fig. 10, 13: para. 0201: ‘apply two types of downsampling filters’], or
wherein the first set of the positions and the second set of positions are the same, or
wherein the first set of the positions and the second set of positions are different, or
wherein at least one of: the first set of the positions or the second set of positions depends on a coding mode of the video unit.
Regarding claim 12, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 11, wherein the sample positions are left to the video unit [Figs. 4-8], and/or the sample positions are above to the video unit [Figs. 4-8],
the samples positions are left-above to the video unit, the sample positions are above-right to the video unit, or
the sample positions are left-bottom to the video unit, or wherein the first set of sample positions depends on availability of neighbouring samples, or
wherein the target filter is used to generate samples of the first color component corresponding to reconstruction samples of the second color component at a second set of positions [Fig. 13; para. 0201], or
wherein the first set of the positions comprises at least one of: two rows of samples above the video unit or two columns of samples left to the video unit.
Regarding claim 13, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 11, wherein the second set of the positions comprises at least one of: one row of samples above the video unit [Figs. 4-8] or one column of samples left to the video unit [Figs. 4-8].
Regarding claim 14, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 11, wherein at least one of: the first set of the positions or the second set of positions comprises samples left to the video unit if the coding mode is CCLM-L [Fig. 8; para. 0195, 0206: ‘the location of the left and above neighboring samples and the sample of the current block’; INTRA_L_CCLM].
Regarding claim 15, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 11, wherein at least one of: the first set of the positions or the second set of positions comprises samples above to the video unit if the coding mode is CCLM-T [Fig. 8; para. 0195, 0206: ‘the location of the left and above neighboring samples and the sample of the current block’; INTRA_T_CCLM].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights