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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully read and considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding lines 7-8 on page 5 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that the claims have not be considered as a whole, and that the combination is the result of impermissible level of hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of claims 1-6 are not relied upon Zhang nor Holcomb individually, but together as a whole, in that paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one-bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode, thus enabling the mode of cross component linear model to be performed. And in paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementation of cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data. And in paragraph [108], Zhang discloses utilization of plural CCLM modes, along with Zhang’s paragraph [109] for enabling cross-component linear model mode. Thus, Zhang does disclose the implementation of Cross Component Linear Model mode. So, thus, Zhang’s reference is relevant to the discussion of the claims since both Zhang’s teaching and the Applicant’s invention pertain to enablement of Cross Component Linear model tools.
Zhang does not disclose “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb’s paragraph [72] discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks. Thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning. Thus, Holcomb discloses partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning.
Since Zhang discloses “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zhang and Holcomb pertain to video compression and partitioning of video data, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, the combination of Zhang and Holcomb together is reasonable to combine to ascertain the limitations of the claims since the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb are relevant to the discussion of the claims.
Regarding line 4, and lines 15-16 on page 6 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that Zhang teaches away from the missing limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of claims 1-6 are not relied upon Zhang nor Holcomb individually, but together as a whole, in that paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one-bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode, thus enabling the mode of cross component linear model to be performed. And in paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementation of cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data. And in paragraph [108], Zhang discloses utilization of plural CCLM modes, along with Zhang’s paragraph [109] for enabling cross-component linear model mode. Thus, Zhang does disclose the implementation of Cross Component Linear Model mode. So, thus, Zhang’s reference is relevant to the discussion of the claims since both Zhang’s teaching and the Applicant’s invention pertain to enablement of Cross Component Linear model tools.
Zhang does not disclose “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb’s paragraph [72] discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks. Thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning. Thus, Holcomb discloses partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning.
Since Zhang discloses “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zhang and Holcomb pertain to video compression and partitioning of video data, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
Thus, Zhang’s teachings do not teach away from the limitations of the claims.
Regarding lines 17-18 on page 6 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that impermissible level of hindsight was used. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zhang and Holcomb pertain to video compression and partitioning of video data, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
Regarding lines 7-9 on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that impermissible hindsight was applied to the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zhang and Holcomb pertain to video compression and partitioning of video data, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
Regarding lines 9-11 on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that there is no explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang’s paragraph [68] discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one-bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode, thus enabling the mode of cross component linear model to be performed. And in paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementation of cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data. And in paragraph [108], Zhang discloses utilization of plural CCLM modes, along with Zhang’s paragraph [109] for enabling cross-component linear model mode. Thus, Zhang does disclose the implementation of Cross Component Linear Model mode. So, thus, Zhang’s reference is relevant to the discussion of the claims since both Zhang’s teaching and the Applicant’s invention pertain to enablement of Cross Component Linear model tools.
Zhang does not disclose “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb’s paragraph [72] discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks. Thus, Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning. Thus, Holcomb discloses partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning.
Since Zhang discloses “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Zhang and Holcomb pertain to video compression and partitioning of video data, it is reasonable to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
Thus, the combination of Zhang and Holcomb together is reasonable to combine to ascertain the limitations of the claims for the reasons as set forth in the above paragraphs and in the rejection below.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2018/0205946) in view of Holcomb (US 2018/0115776).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an encoding method (paragraph [115], fig.10, Zhang discloses an encoder 200 for performing the method of encoding of video image data) comprising:
determining a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture (paragraph [77], Zhang discloses that QTBT block structure can implement the feature that luma and chroma have separate QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structures, and paragraph [79], Zhang discloses a separate luma QTBT structure in fig.3A, and a separate chroma QTBT structure fig.3B, thus permitting the determination of a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture);
determining a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block (paragraph [65], Zhang discloses that in order to set the ratio of the luma and chroma blocks, a size of the coding block is determined in order to determine a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block; paragraph [67], Zhang discloses that block size is checked, and paragraph [74], Zhang discloses that quadtree leaf node size is determined with a minimum quadtree size, wherein paragraph [76], Zhang discloses for a QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structure, the MinQTSize and MaxBTSize are set for luma and chroma blocks);
enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples (paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled);
applying quadtree partitioning of video data (paragraph [75], Zhang discloses application of quadtree partitioning of video data); and
encoding the block responsive to the enabling of the cross-component linear model tool (paragraph [140], fig.10, Zhang discloses that element 220 entropy encodes the video data into a bitstream, wherein paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled).
Zhang does not disclose “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb teaches partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning), and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning).
Since Zhang discloses “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer program comprising instructions for performing the method of claim 1 when executed by one or more processors (paragraph [174], Zhang discloses utilizing a computer readable medium that stores computer executable instructions of a computer program to be executed by computer or processor).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses an encoding apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to perform the encoding method of claim 1 when executed by the one or more processors (paragraph [174], Zhang discloses utilizing a computer readable medium that stores computer executable instructions of a computer program to be executed by computer or processor).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses a decoding method (paragraph [145], fig.11, Zhang discloses a decoder 300 for performing the method of decoding of video image data) comprising:
obtaining a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture (paragraph [147], fig.11, Zhang discloses receiving the encoded video data bitstream at element 320, wherein paragraph [77], Zhang discloses that QTBT block structure can implement the feature that luma and chroma have separate QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structures, and paragraph [79], Zhang discloses a separate luma QTBT structure in fig.3A, and a separate chroma QTBT structure fig.3B, thus permitting the determination of a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture);
determining a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block (paragraph [65], Zhang discloses that in order to set the ratio of the luma and chroma blocks, a size of the coding block is determined in order to determine a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block; paragraph [67], Zhang discloses that block size is checked, and paragraph [74], Zhang discloses that quadtree leaf node size is determined with a minimum quadtree size, wherein paragraph [76], Zhang discloses for a QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structure, the MinQTSize and MaxBTSize are set for luma and chroma blocks);
enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples (paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode to the decoder 300, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled);
applying quadtree partitioning of video data (paragraph [75], Zhang discloses application of quadtree partitioning of video data); and
decoding the block responsive to the enabling of the cross-component linear model tool (paragraph [152], fig.11, Zhang discloses decoding the encoded bitstream as encoded by entropy encoder 220 of video encoder 200 of fig.10, wherein paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode to the decoder 300, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled).
Zhang does not disclose “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb teaches partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning), and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning).
Since Zhang discloses “enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enabling a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding and decoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression and decompression.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer program comprising instructions for performing the decoding method of claim 4 when executed by one or more processors (paragraph [174], Zhang discloses utilizing a computer readable medium that stores computer executable instructions of a computer program to be executed by computer or processor).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses a decoding apparatus (paragraph [145], Zhang discloses a decoder 300 for performing the method of decoding of video image data) comprising one or more processors (paragraph [174], Zhang discloses a computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions to be executed by computer or processor) configured to:
obtain a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture (paragraph [147], fig.11, Zhang discloses receiving the encoded video data bitstream at element 320, wherein paragraph [77], Zhang discloses that QTBT block structure can implement the feature that luma and chroma have separate QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structures, and paragraph [79], Zhang discloses a separate luma QTBT structure in fig.3A, and a separate chroma QTBT structure fig.3B, thus permitting the determination of a chroma block and a co-located luma block from separate luma and chroma tree partitioning of a picture);
determine a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block (paragraph [65], Zhang discloses that in order to set the ratio of the luma and chroma blocks, a size of the coding block is determined in order to determine a size for the luma block and a size for the chroma block; paragraph [67], Zhang discloses that block size is checked, and paragraph [74], Zhang discloses that quadtree leaf node size is determined with a minimum quadtree size, wherein paragraph [76], Zhang discloses for a QTBT (quadtree binary tree) structure, the MinQTSize and MaxBTSize are set for luma and chroma blocks);
enable a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples (paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode to the decoder 300, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled);
apply quadtree partitioning of video data (paragraph [75], Zhang discloses application of quadtree partitioning of video data); and
decode the block responsive to the enabling of the cross-component linear model tool (paragraph [152], fig.11, Zhang discloses decoding the encoded bitstream as encoded by entropy encoder 220 of video encoder 200 of fig.10, wherein paragraph [68], Zhang discloses the video encoder 200 can code a one bit flag for indicating the enabling of CCLM (cross component linear model) mode to the decoder 300, and paragraph [105], Zhang discloses implementing cross-component linear model mode for chroma intra prediction mode for video coding by performing prediction from luma to chroma, thus enabling the cross component linear model tool for compression of video data, and paragraph [108], Zhang discloses implementing plural CCLM modes; paragraph [109], Zhang discloses cross-component linear model mode is enabled).
Zhang does not disclose “enable a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”. However, Holcomb teaches partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning), and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning (paragraph [72], Holcomb discloses, according to HEVC video encoding standard for a quadtree syntax, a coding tree unit (CTU) can comprise of a 64x64 luma sample values (CTB or coding tree block) and two 32x32 chroma CTB, in that the CTU can be split into four CUs, wherein each CU can comprise one 32x32 luma coding block and two 16x16 chroma blocks, thus Holcomb discloses the condition that luma blocks can be of 64x64 or 32x32 pixel sizes resulting from quad-tree partitioning, and chroma blocks can be of 32x32 or 16x16 pixel sizes resulting from a quad-tree partitioning).
Since Zhang discloses “enable a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples”, and Holcomb discloses “…partitioning data based on the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and Holcomb together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “…enable a cross-component linear model tool for predicting chroma samples based on luma samples in the condition that the luma block is of size 64 by 64 pixels or 32 by 32 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning, and the chroma block is of size 32 by 32 pixels or 16 by 16 pixels resulting from a quad-tree partitioning” so as to improve the encoding and decoding efficiency of video data by accurate predictions of video components necessary for compression and decompression.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7341. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm.
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 V 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.
/ALLEN C WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights