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 § 112
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 1, 11, 17-20 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. Claim 1 isnt clear on how the reconstructed chroma value is defined.
Claims 7 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. By using "and/or," the aforementioned claims recite broad limitations designated with "or," followed by narrower limitations designated with "and” in the same claim. The scope of the claim would not be ascertainable since the term raises a question or doubt as to whether the elements listed with "and/or" are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Exparte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Exparte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Exparte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Exparte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
Claims 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In addition, claims are drafted in a way that does not specify the structural limitations of the claims. For this reason, it is neither possible to give a definite construction to claims 18-20, nor is it possible to ascertain the scope of protection sought by claims 18-20. The non-compliance with the substantive provisions is such an extent that a meaningful search of the whole claimed subject matter of independent claims 18-20 could not be carried out.
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) 1-2, 5-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent 11722694 B2-Galpin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Galpin”), in view of US 20200154115 A1-Ramasubramonian et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Ram”)
Regarding claim 1, Galpin discloses a chroma component prediction method (Fig 1, 8, 11-16), comprising: fitting a first reconstructed chroma value (column 8, lines 55-60, wherein reconstructed chroma samples), a first predicted chroma value (Column 8, lines 45-55, wherein predicted chroma samples), and a first luma value corresponding to a template pixel of a target image block to obtain model parameters (column 8, lines 45-60, wherein luma samples), wherein the model parameters are parameters of a chroma component prediction model corresponding to the target image block (column 8, lines 45-60, wherein parameters alpha and beta), and the template pixel is at least part of pixels in a pixel region adjacent to the target image block (Column 9, lines 35-50, and fig 10); and
Galpin fails to disclose determining, based on the model parameters and a second predicted chroma value and a second luma value corresponding to the target image block, a target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ram discloses determining, based on the model parameters and a second predicted chroma value and a second luma value corresponding to the target image block ([0077-78], wherein pred c shows the predicted chroma value, and rec l is the second luma samples), a target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block ([0009], wherein determining predicted chroma samples; abstract discloses determine a predicted chroma samples of a prediction block for the current or target block. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Galpin to disclose determining, based on the model parameters and a second predicted chroma value and a second luma value corresponding to the target image block, a target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block as taught by Ram, to improve efficiency of video encoder and/or video decode ([0105], Ram).
Regarding claim 2, Ram discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the model parameters and a second predicted chroma value and a second luma value corresponding to the target image block, a target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block comprises: performing calculation based on the model parameters and the second predicted chroma value and the second luma value corresponding to the target image block by using the chroma component prediction model, to obtain the target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block ([0016], chroma component prediction), wherein the chroma component prediction model comprises a cross-component linear prediction model or a cross-component nonlinear prediction model ([0016], fig 4, wherein cross-component linear prediction model).
Regarding claim 5, Galpin discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the fitting a first reconstructed chroma value, a first predicted chroma value, and a first luma value corresponding to a template pixel, the method comprises: performing intra prediction on the template pixel based on a chroma intra prediction mode corresponding to the template pixel, to determine the first predicted chroma value (column 8, lines 15-35, wherein intra prediction is performed); and performing intra prediction on the template pixel based on a luma intra prediction mode corresponding to the template pixel, to determine the first luma value (column 8, lines 15-35, wherein intra prediction is performed)); or determining the first luma value based on a reconstructed luma value of the template pixel.
Regarding claim 6, Ram discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the determining, based on the model parameters and a second predicted chroma value and a second luma value corresponding to the target image block, a target predicted chroma value corresponding to the target image block, the method comprises: performing intra prediction on the target image block based on a chroma intra prediction mode corresponding to the target image block, to determine the second predicted chroma value ([0108], intra coding of chroma samples); and performing intra prediction on the target image block based on a luma intra prediction mode corresponding to the target image block, to determine the second luma value ([0133], wherein luma to chroma derivation based on intra prediction); or determining the second luma value based on a reconstructed luma value of the target image block.
Regarding claim 7, Galpin disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the template pixel is adjacent to the target image block and located above and/or to the left of the target image block (Fig 1 and 10); or the template pixel is located in an upper part and/or a left part of the target image block (Fig 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 8, Galpin discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining the template pixel of the target image block based on a target identifier of the target image block (Column 2, lines 15-25, wherein determining at least one spatial neighboring template comprises determining a number n of reconstructed samples in the at least one spatial neighboring template corresponding to n=2.sup.k with k chosen so that n is the maximum integer smaller than the sum of the block width and block height)
Regarding claim 9, Galpin discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the chroma component prediction model is determined based on the target identifier of the target image block (column 8 lines 45-60, .
Regarding claim 10, Ram discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the target identifier comprises a first target identifier or a second target identifier, the first target identifier corresponds to a chroma component prediction single model ([0072], single model), and the second target identifier corresponds to a chroma component prediction multi-model ([0072], multi-model).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, terminal comprising a processor and a memory(fig 19 of Galpin)
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 18, chip (Galpin, column 26, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19, computer program product (column 4, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20, electronic device (Galpin Fig 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights