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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 19, 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US 20180063531A1 “HU”, in view of Vishwanath et al. Non-EE2: Cross-component palette coding Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and 1S0/IEC ITC 1/SC 29, 25th Meeting, by teleconference, 12-21 January 2022, “Vishwanath”
Regarding claim 1, HU discloses a method of coding colour pictures (i.e. HU, abstract, chroma sample processing) using coding tools (HU, abstract) including one or more cross component models (as cited below, i.e, pallet table, i.e. HU, ¶ 97) related modes, the method comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block comprising a first-colour current block associated with a first-colour component (HU, ¶ 102, block and color components including Y and U V components) and one or more second-colour current blocks associated with one or more second-colour components (as cited below, i.e. HU, ¶ 98, … Index maps of different color components under palette mode may be predicted in a cross-component manner…) respectively (HU, ¶ 98), wherein the input data comprise pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side (HU, ¶ 11, Fig. 11) or data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (HU, claim 1);
It is noted that HU is silent about determining one or more cross-component palette tables , wherein each of said one or more cross-component palette tables comprising one or more entries and each entry maps one first- colour sample value to one or more second-colour sample values; and encoding or decoding said one or more second-colour current blocks using coding information comprising a cross-component palette-based model and the cross-component palette- based model corresponds to said one or more cross-component palette tables as claimed.
However, VISHWANATH discloses determining one or more cross-component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2) , wherein each of said one or more cross-component palette tables comprising one or more entries and each entry maps one first- colour sample value (as cited above, i.e. VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2, lima sample) to one or more second-colour sample values (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2, i.e. chroma sample); and encoding or decoding said one or more second-colour current blocks using coding information comprising a cross-component palette-based model (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2, i.e. cc-plt coding) and the cross-component palette- based model corresponds to said one or more cross-component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2).
Both HU and VISHWANATH teach systems with video compression, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the HU disclosure, cross-component table, as taught by VISHWANATH. Such inclusion would have increased the usefulness of the system by improving coding gains with a negligible complexity increase, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the first-colour current block corresponds to a luma block (as cited above, i.e. VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2) and said one or more second-colour current blocks corresponds to a first chroma block and a second chroma block (as cited above, i.e. VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2).
Regarding claim 3, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein said one or more cross-component palette tables correspond to a first cross-component palette table (as cited below, VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2, i.e. table 1, Y.) and a second cross-component palette table, and wherein each entry of the first cross-component palette table maps one luma sample value to one first chroma sample value (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2, U) and each entry of the second cross-component palette table maps one luma sample value to one second chroma sample (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2 V) value (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein said one or more cross-component palette tables correspond to a joint cross-component palette table, and wherein each entry of the joint cross- component palette table maps one luma sample value (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1, Y) to one first chroma sample value (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1 U) and one second chroma sample value (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1, the Y, U, and V).
Regarding claim 5, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein a second-colour sample in the current block is predicted by using said one or more cross-component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1), and wherein a first-colour sample value for a collocated first-colour sample corresponding to the second-colour sample is looked up in said one or more cross-component palette tables to determine a corresponding second- colour value as a predicted second-colour value for the second-colour sample (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3, i.e. Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said one or more cross-component palette tables are built based on reconstructed or prediction samples, at collocated location, of the first-colour component and said one or more second-colour components in one or more previously coded blocks (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 2, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein one cross-component palette-based model is maintained across multiple CUs (Coding Units) (HU) and said one cross-component palette-based model (HU discloses the look up table, which could be implemented by HU, para 66.) is reset at beginning or end of a current picture, slice, tile, CTU (Coding Tree Unit) group, M CTU rows or N CTUs (HU, 101).
Regarding claim 8, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein each picture is divided into N regions and N cross- component palette-based models are maintained (HU, ¶ 59, Fig. 4A), and wherein each cross-component palette-based model is derived based on reconstructed or prediction samples of the first-colour component and said one or more second-colour components in each region and N is a positive integer greater than 1 (HU, Fig. 4B, ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 10, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein two or more of the N cross-component palette- based models are merged to form a merged cross-component palette-based model, and the merged cross-component palette-based model is used for encoding or decoding said one or more second- colour current blocks (VISHWANATH, pg. 1, sect. 2).
Regarding claim 19, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein if a cross-component prediction mode is enabled for the current block, said one or more second-colour current blocks are adaptively (HU, ¶ 91) encoded or decoded using the cross-component prediction mode (HU, ¶ 19) or said one or more cross-component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 1 sect. 2).
Regarding claim 24, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said one or more cross-component palette tables are shared with a palette table used for a palette prediction mode (VISHWANATH, pg. 1 sect. 2).
Regarding claim 25, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 24, wherein said one or more cross-component palette tables are used to update the palette table, or the palette table is used to update said one or more cross- component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 1 sect. 2).
Regarding claim 26, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 24, wherein when a target sample in the current block is encoded or decoded by an escape code in the palette prediction mode, or when signalling a new palette entry, said one or more cross-component palette tables are used for signalling or parsing a target sample value for the target sample (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 2).
Regarding claim 27, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 26, wherein the first-colour component corresponds to luma component and said one or more second-colour components correspond to two chroma components, and only the luma component of the target sample is signalled (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 2).
Regarding claim 28, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, further discloses the method of Claim 27, wherein the two chroma components of the target sample are derived according to said one or more cross-component palette tables (VISHWANATH, pg. 2, sect. 3).
Regarding claim 29, HU/VISHWANATH, for the same motivation of combination, discloses an apparatus for video coding, the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors arranged to: receive input data associated with a current block comprising a first-colour current block associated with a first-colour component and one or more second-colour current blocks associated with one or more second-colour components respectively (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the input data comprise pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side or data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (see rejection of claim 1); determine one or more cross-component palette tables, wherein each of said one or more cross-component palette tables comprising one or more entries and each entry maps one first- colour sample value to one or more second-colour sample values (see rejection of claim 1); and encode or decode said one or more second-colour current blocks using coding information comprising a cross-component palette-based model and the cross-component palette-based model corresponds to said one or more cross-component palette tables (see rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12108090 B2 Unsymmetrical quad-tree partitioning
US 12101472 B2 Intra prediction mode partitioning
US 11910020 B2 Signaling of reshaping information in video processing
US 11546592 B2 Flexible block partitioning for chroma component
US 20220086439 A1 Method and Apparatus of Luma-Chroma Separated Coding Tree Coding with Constraints
US 20220053194 A1 INTRA PREDICTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIDEO SEQUENCE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK F HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm (Eastern Time), Federal Alternative First Friday Off.
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.
/FRANK F HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights