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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 07/15/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending with claims 1-3, 6-12, and 18-19 being amended and claim 21 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 1-9, 16-19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biatek et al. (“Biatek”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0413049 A1] in view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) [US 2016/0277762 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, 0196, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’],
wherein the plurality of filters is applied in a process of cross-component linear model prediction of the video unit [Fig. 10; para. 0090, 0196, 0201: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’]; and
determining [para. 0091: ‘for intra-prediction or intra-prediction coding’] is applied during a multi-filter approach for a cross-component prediction of the video unit [para. 0201, 0365: ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’; various filters for ‘performing down-sampling processing in both MIP and in CCLM prediction’],
wherein a syntax element is (i.e. ‘signal a selection of a down-sampling filter by a sequence parameter set (SPS)’) [para. 0101], or
wherein the syntax element is set to a default value if the coding mode is not allowed, and
wherein a further syntax element related to the multi-filter approach for the cross-component prediction is indicated after the syntax element (i.e. ‘signal a selection of a down-sampling filter by a sequence parameter set (SPS)’) [para. 0101]; 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.
Biatek does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
determining whether a coding mode is applied during a multi-filter approach for a cross-component prediction of the video unit,
wherein a syntax element is indicated if the coding mode is allowed, or
wherein the syntax element is set to a default value if the coding mode is not allowed.
However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determining whether a coding mode is applied (e.g., ‘if a neighboring CU is inter-coded’ or ‘when LM prediction mode is enabled’) [para. 0100, 0144: ‘’whether chroma prediction is performed based on LM-based encoding unit’] during a multi-filter approach for a cross-component prediction of the video unit (i.e. ‘LM-based encoding unit’) [para. 0100, 0144: ‘one or more sets of the downsampling filter may be further signaled in either a sequence parameter set (SPS)’],
wherein a syntax element is indicated if the coding mode is allowed (e.g., ‘if a neighboring CU is inter-coded’ or ‘when LM prediction mode is enabled’) [para. 0100, 0144: ‘’whether chroma prediction is performed based on LM-based encoding unit’], or
wherein the syntax element is set to a default value if the coding mode is not allowed (i.e. ‘Alternatively … a default downsampling is defined) [para. 0100, 0144: ‘’whether chroma prediction is performed based on LM-based encoding unit’].
Biatek and Zhang 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 Zhang as motivation to determine a filter from a set of filters to apply to the luma block based on a characteristics of the chroma block in the method of linear model (ML) prediction in accordance with the high efficiency video coding standards (H.265 or HEVC) [Zhang: para. 0024-0025].
Regarding claim 2, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1,
wherein a 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 filter, {Y} represents a set of samples of the first color component, n represents a number of taps of the 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 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 filter, {Y} represents a set of samples of the first color component, n represents the number of taps of the 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 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 filter of the plurality of filters depends on a color format, or
wherein for K samples of the second color component, a t 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 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 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 filter depends on a color format, or wherein positions of samples involved in the filter depends on at least one of: the first or the second color component, or wherein positions of samples involved in the filter depends on a position of a current block, or wherein positions of samples involved in the 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 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, wherein the coding mode is allowed if a specific mode is applied to the video unit, wherein the specific mode comprises at least one of: a regular CCLM [Fig. 13: ‘706’; para. 0007, 0028-0031: ‘(CCLM) prediction’], a CCLM-L, a CCLM-T, a CCLM-LT, or a multi-model CCLM.
Regarding claim 7, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, 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 further syntax element is indicated if the multi-filter approach is indicated to be applied 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 further syntax element is indicated for one of: a picture, a slice, a CTU, a CU, a PU, or a TU, or
wherein the further 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 further 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 further syntax element is coded with at least one coding context in arithmetic coding [para. 0102], or
wherein the further syntax element is coded with bypass coding [para. 0102].
Regarding claim 9, Biatek meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a filter selection regarding the 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, 0365: ‘interpolate values for the prediction block according to one or more interpolation filters’; ‘apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’; ‘a video coder (e.g., video encoder 200 or video decoder 300) may apply two types of downsampling filters to luma samples’; ‘a video coder (e.g., video encoder 200 or video decoder 300) may remove a CCLM down sampling process that involves up to 6-tap filters’].
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 21, the corresponding method for storing a bitstream in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 10-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biatek in view of Zhang in further 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 filter and the filter selection is applied according to the cost of each filter, or
wherein a cost of a 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 filter and the 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 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, Zhang 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 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 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 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, Zhang, Saeedi and Srinivasan 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, Zhang, Saeedi and Srinivasan as motivation to select a 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 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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