DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 06/26//2025, wherein claims 1-12 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/26//2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Please replace the term “colour” with “color” (e.g. ¶0229). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because of the following. Please replace the term “colour” with “color” in fig. 30. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims refer to “colour”. Please change to “color”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein the single-model modes correspond to CCLM, CCCM with single-model or a combination thereof” (emphasis added). It is believed “with single-model” applies to both CCCM and CCLM, however, as written, this is not clearly stated. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite a plurality of model types along with their acronyms. Please ensure the acronyms are properly defined when the models are disclosed for the first time. See for e.g. “CCCM” in claim 4. This is also believed to be incorrectly referenced to “Cross-Component Linear Model” in claim 6 and should read “Convolutional Cross-Component Model” as it appears in claim 8. Please ensure consistency in the terms throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
Claims 9-11 are 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.
As to Claim 9, Claim 9 recites “wherein a first syntax is signalled or parsed to indicate whether the candidate list comprising said one or more cross-component candidates.” (emphasis added), however, the phrase “whether the candidate list comprising said one or more cross-component candidates” suggests there should be additional limitation that follows to complete the sentence regarding the candidate list. The specification (e.g. ¶0077) also appears to recite this same feature without mentioning anything further about the candidate list. Thus, it is difficult to unequivocally ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. In light of the foregoing, and for the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above limitation to mean parsing or signaling a syntax element that indicates the candidate list.
As to Claims 10-11, Claims 10-11 depend on Claim 9 and therefore include all of its features. Thus, for the reasons presented above, Claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2025/0337940 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/436,800), in view of Liu et al. WO 2021/136504 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang and Liu, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhang discloses and/or suggests “A method of coding colour pictures using coding tools including one or more cross component models related modes [Zhang’s teachings relate to history-based cross-component prediction (e.g. ¶0002)], the method comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block comprising a first-colour block and a second-colour block [With respect to the color space, please refer to the Cb and Cr chroma components of a video block as shown for e.g. in fig. 4. Also refer to the chroma formats presented in ¶0103-¶0108], wherein the input data comprises pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side or coded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side [See encoder 114 and decoder 124 in fig. 1. Also note figs. 2-3 with respect to encoding (200) and decoding (300) video data, respectively.]; deriving a candidate list comprising one or more cross-component candidates [Refer to for e.g. ¶0005 regarding a history table of cross-component prediction (CCP) models or a list of CCP candidates], wherein said one or more cross-component candidates are from one or more specific cross-component mode types [Said history table or list of candidates can refer to one or more cross-component mode types. Please refer to descriptions of the history-based HT beginning at ¶0323 (through for e.g. ¶0352) with CCP models (e.g. CCLM or CCCM) that may be stored (e.g. ¶0327)]; and encoding or decoding the current block [See encoder 114 and decoder 124 in fig. 1. Also note figs. 2-3 with respect to encoding (200) and decoding (300) video data, respectively.] using information comprising the candidate list [Zhang further describes signaling at least one syntax element (SE) indicating for e.g. whether H-CCP is applied or if a specific mode is used (e.g. CCLM). See for e.g. 0353-0365], wherein when a target cross-component candidate from the candidate list is selected for the current block [The signaled SE may be for e.g. an index to indicate which entry in a history table (HT) is fetched to derive the model(s) of cross-component prediction (e.g. ¶0357, ¶0365)], a predictor is generated for the second-colour block by applying a target cross-component model associated with the target cross-component candidate to the first-colour block.” [Zhang shows both of the two chroma components can be predicted via the CCCM model (e.g. 0281), however, it appears Zhang does not predict one component by applying the model to the other component as best understood in the claim. Please see Liu below (WO 2021/136504 A1) for corresponding support of this feature] Although Zhang’s teachings are deemed relevant as indicated above, Zhang does not appear to address “a predictor is generated for the second-colour block by applying a target cross-component model associated with the target cross-component candidate to the first-colour block.” Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features. [Given the BRI of the foregoing feature, please refer to the abstract and ¶0007 of Liu for example, where a “second color component” of a current video block can be predictively coded using cross-component prediction with a multi-parameter model (CCPMPM) based on a “first color component”. Further details are also provided beginning at the bottom of pg. 17 “Cross-component prediction with multiple-parameter model (CCPMPM) through pg.18] Given the teachings of Liu above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Zhang related to history-based cross-component prediction (e.g. ¶0002), with the teachings of Liu to facilitate predicting between color components via a multi-parameter model to help achieve greater flexibility when performing cross-component prediction for video coding applications. Such improvements are indicated throughout the work of Liu (e.g. pgs. 17-18 regarding CCPMPM).
Regarding claim 2. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein said one or more specific cross-component mode types correspond to CCLM (Cross-Component Linear Model) or MMLM (Multiple Model CCLM) modes.” [¶0152-¶0153 refer to MMLM and CCLM. ¶0307-¶0308 also discuss how various cross-component prediction modes can be signaled in ECM]
Regarding claim 3. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein said one or more specific cross-component mode types correspond to single-model modes.” [Given the BRI of the limitation, ¶0324-¶0325 of Zhang, for example, disclose the original ‘CCCM’ and ‘CCLM’ modes which are construed to be “single-model modes”. Also shown are their associated variances. Zhang provides further details regarding these modes in the paragraphs that follow (see e.g. ¶0339 regarding a single model)]
Regarding claim 4. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the single-model modes correspond to CCLM, CCCM with single-model or a combination thereof.” [Same citations presented in claim 3 above, since Zhang describes both CCLM and CCCM for a single model]
Regarding claim 5. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein said one or more specific cross-component mode types correspond to multi-model modes.” [¶0324-¶0325 also show the original CCLM or CCCM modes can refer to multiple models such as MM-CCLM or MM-CCCM, i.e. multiple model modes. Also please refer to ¶0339 regarding multiple models.]
Regarding claim 6. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim., Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the multi-model modes correspond to MMLM (Multiple Model CCLM), CCCM (Cross-Component Linear Model) with multi-model or a combination thereof.” [Please refer to for e.g. ¶0324-¶0325 as well as the paragraphs that follow (e.g. ¶0339)]
Regarding claim 7. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein said one or more specific cross-component mode types correspond to a single specific mode.” [Given the BRI of the foregoing limitation, ¶0324-¶0325 of Zhang, for example, show variances of the original CCCM and CCLM modes, i.e. specific cross-component mode types. CCLM can correspond to single model modes CCLM-L, CCLM-T, etc. Likewise, CCCM also corresponds to single model modes CCCM-L, CCCM-T, etc.]
Regarding claim 8. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the single specific mode corresponds to CCLM (Cross- Component Linear Model), MMLM (Multiple Model CCLM), CCCM (Convolutional Cross- Component Model), CCCM with multi-model, or GLM (Gradient Linear Model).” [Recognizing the “or” condition, ¶0324-¶0327 show CCLM, CCCM, or GLM may be used. CCCM can also be multi-model as in MM-CCCM, MM-CCCM-L, etc. Further, CCLM can also be multi-model as in MM-CCLM, MM-CCLM-L, etc.]
Regarding claim 9. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein a first syntax is signalled or parsed to indicate whether the candidate list comprising said one or more cross-component candidates.” [In light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Zhang describes at least one syntax element (SE) may be signaled for indicating whether the H-CCP is applied. Please refer to for e.g. ¶0353-¶0365. This can be construed as a first syntax given the BRI]
Regarding claim 10. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the first syntax indicates that the candidate list comprises said one or more cross-component candidates, a second syntax is signalled or parsed to indicate whether said one or more cross-component candidates are from said one or more specific cross-component mode types.” [Given the BRI, see for e.g. ¶0353-¶0365, where a SE may be signaled only if a specific mode is used (e.g. CCCM or CCLM). Zhang also describes an index of a list. This can be construed as a second syntax given the BRI]
Regarding claim 11. Zhang and Liu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 10, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the second syntax indicates that said one or more types, a third syntax is signalled or parsed to indicate the target cross-component candidate.” [At least one SE may be signaled to indicate which entry in a HT is fetched to derive the model(s) of cross component prediction (¶0353-¶0365). This SE can be construed as a third syntax given the BRI]
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1. As to the required hardware, please see for e.g. ¶0753-¶0755 of Zhang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references. See for e.g. the work of Zhang et al. US 2018/0205946 A1 with respect to an intra chroma prediction mode list (e.g. ¶0113) which can include one cross-component linear model (CCLM). Zhang et al. also discuss adopting a multiple linear models (MMLM) mode (e.g. ¶0108).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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 A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights