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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/26 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2019/0028714) in view of Astola et al. (US 2025/0008084).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a method for video processing (see figs. 6-7), comprising: obtaining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (see figs. 6-7), a first video block (see 802 of 808 in fig. 8), the first video block being generated based on a first adjustment (see 806 in fig. 8) of a current video block (see 802 of 800 in fig. 8) of the video, the first adjustment comprising at least one of adjusting an orientation of the current video block or adjusting positions of samples in the current video block (see “ROTATION” 806 in fig. 8); generating a second video block (see 902 of 916 in fig. 9) based on a second adjustment of the first video block (see 914 in fig. 9), the second adjustment being an inverse process of the first adjustment (see 914 in fig. 9); and performing the conversion based on the second video block (see 706 in fig. 7).
Although Luo discloses wherein a corresponding relationship between luma and chroma samples of the first video block (e.g. see ¶ [0032]) is adjusted for a prediction coding tool (see 402 in fig. 4), it is noted that Luo does not provide the particular wherein information regarding whether to adjust a corresponding relationship between luma and chroma samples of the first video block for a cross-component prediction coding tool is dependent on a color format of the current video block.
However, Astola discloses a video processing system wherein information regarding whether to adjust a corresponding relationship between luma and chroma samples of the first video block for a cross-component prediction coding tool is dependent on a color format of the current video block (see 904 in fig. 9).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Astola teachings of the well-known cross-component prediction coding tool into Luo prediction component coding for the benefit of reducing color discrepancies, artificial edges, or other artefacts within the target chroma block due to the use of two different luma-to-chroma models.
Regarding claim 2, Luo further discloses wherein the first video block is generated and encoded into the bitstream at an encoder (see 400 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Luo further discloses wherein the orientation of the current video block is adjusted by rotating the current video block (see 800 and 808 in fig. 8), and the second adjustment comprises: adjusting positions of samples in the first video block by rotating the first video block (see 912 and 916 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, the references further discloses wherein information regarding how to adjust the corresponding relationship is dependent on the color format of the current video block (see Astola 900 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, the references further discloses wherein the cross-component prediction coding tool comprises at least one of the following: a cross-component linear model (see Astola 904 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, the references further discloses wherein a type of a filter for adjusting the corresponding relationship is dependent on at least one of the following: the color format (e.g. see Astola ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, the references further discloses wherein the adjusted corresponding relationship is the same as a corresponding relationship between luma and chroma samples of the current video block (see Astola 902-904 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Luo further discloses wherein the first adjustment is determined based on a rate-distortion optimization (RDO) process (e.g. see ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Luo further discloses wherein luma and chroma rate-distortion (RD) costs are determined for a plurality of candidate adjustment schemes, and the first adjustment comprises a candidate adjustment scheme with the least cost (e.g. see ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Luo further discloses wherein information regarding whether the second adjustment is allowed (e.g. see ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Luo further discloses wherein the coding information comprises at least one of the following: a quantization parameter (QP) (e.g. see ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Luo further discloses wherein at least one syntax element indicating information regarding at least one of the following is included in the bitstream: whether to apply the second adjustment on the first video block (e.g. see ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Luo further discloses wherein the current video block is a picture (see 800 in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, the claim(s) recite an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (see 200 in fig. 2) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts (see 200 in fig. 2) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 21, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 22, the references further discloses wherein a corresponding relationship between luma and chroma samples of the first video block is adjusted for a cross-component prediction coding tool (see 904 in fig. 9).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo and Astola in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0314575).
Regarding claim 8, the references do not disclose wherein if the color format is format 4:2:0 and the current video block is located on a boundary of a CTU of the video, the filter is a 3-tap filter.
However, Li discloses an encoding/decoding system wherein if the color format is format 4:2:0 and the current video block is located on a boundary of a CTU of the video, the filter is a 3-tap filter (e.g. see ¶ [0116]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Li teachings of tap filter into the references filtering for the benefit of properly down-sampling block with neighboring block.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo and Astola in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0314575).
Regarding claim 15, although Luo further discloses wherein the current video block is comprised in a current frame of the video (see 800 in fig. 8), it is noted that Luo does not disclose the current frame is coded with a predetermined CU size and a predetermined splitting scheme.
However, Wang discloses a video processing system wherein the current frame is coded with a predetermined CU size (e.g. see ¶ [0063]) and a predetermined splitting scheme (e.g. see ¶ [0060]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Wang teachings of the well-known partition scheme into Luo prediction coding for the benefit of properly coding and decoding with industries standard practices.
Regarding claim 16, the references further discloses wherein the predetermined splitting scheme comprises a quad tree splitting (e.g. see Wang ¶ [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-19 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Kim et al. (US 2021/0021809), discloses encoding/decoding with video format adjustment.
2. Kotra et al. (US 2021/0014498), discloses encoding/decoding with video format adjustment.
3. Laroche et al. (US 2020/0288135), discloses cross-component prediction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights