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 .
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 1-20 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.
Namely, the final recited feature of the independent claims is two-fold indefinite:
First, a same structure is indefinite because the specification defines three different and distinct structures such that it is unclear what is referenced by said recited structure; further, structure could refer to any structure defined in the specification, including the color component structure, for example. From the context, and for examination, it will be presumed that the structure is a tree structure.
Second, different color components as recited is confusing because is the color components are luma or chroma; one of those is greyscale, so is arguably not a color component, since no color, but rather greyscale, is implicated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rapaka (US 2016/0100167).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rapaka discloses a method of video decoding performed at a video decoder, (Abstract, decoding device for decoding video) the method comprising: receiving an encoded video bitstream that includes a current picture; (paragraph 0059, encoded bitstream with video stream of pictures received) performing inverse quantization on a current block included in the current picture; (paragraph 0059, inverse quantization performed on received blocks in pictures) performing an inverse transform on the current block after performing the inverse quantization on the current block; (paragraph 0059, inverse transform performed on blocks) determining whether an adaptive color transform (ACT) is enabled; (paragraphs 0010/0078, ACT enabled) and performing an inverse color transform on the current block based on the ACT being determined as enabled, (paragraphs 0073/0076, color transform performed as part of ACT) wherein the ACT is determined as enabled based on different color components being split by a same structure. (as discussed above, this is indefinite as recited; paragraph 0155, color space structure for ACT; but interpreted as tree, so paragraph 0156, CTUs of tree allow for ACT application)
Regarding claim 2, Rapaka discloses wherein the inverse color transform is an inverse adaptive color transform (ACT), (paragraph 0151 inverse color transform is an adaptive transform-see paragraph 0152) and performing the inverse color transform converts the reconstructed current block from a color-space transform to a RGB format. (paragraph 0158 inverse transform converts to RGB format)
Regarding claim 3, Rapaka discloses wherein performing the inverse color transform comprises: offsetting one or more color components of the inverse color transform by a constant. (paragraph 0083, offset applied to color transform)
Regarding claim 5, Rapaka discloses determining that the ACT is enabled based on a syntax element included in the encoded video bitstream for the current block. (paragraphs 0157 and 0159 color transform is signaled in syntax for current block)
Regarding claim 6, Rapaka discloses wherein the color transform is signaled for each coding tree unit (CTU) having a largest coding unit (CU). (paragraphs 0049 and 0068 in conjunction CU may be CTU and transform may be for CU-also see paragraph 0156)
Regarding independent claim 9, Rapaka discloses a method of video encoding performed at a video encoder, (paragraph 0083, encoding at video encoder) the method comprising: determining whether an adaptive color transform (ACT) is enabled; (paragraph 0083, ACT enabled) performing a color transform on a current block based on the ACT being determined as enabled; (paragraph 0083, color transform performed as part of ACT) performing a transform on the current block; (paragraph 0083, duplicative of above feature because color transform is a transform) and performing quantization on the current block, (paragraphs 0077/0080, quantization performed at encoder in inverse of decoder per claim 1 above) wherein the ACT is determined as enabled based on different color components being split by a same structure. (as discussed above, this is indefinite as recited; paragraph 0155, color space structure for ACT; but interpreted as tree, so paragraph 0156, CTUs of tree allow for ACT application)
Dependent claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are coding method claims reciting features similar to dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 above, respectively, and are therefore also disclosed by Rapake for reasons similar to claims 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Regarding independent claim 17, claim 17 is a further coding method claim reciting features similar to independent claims 1 and 9, and is therefore anticipated by Rapaka for reasons similar to claims 1 and 9. And Rapaka identically discloses the further features of: a bitstream that includes the visual media data according to a format rule. (paragraph 0059, bitstream with encoded video)
Dependent claims 18 and 19 are coding method claims reciting features similar to dependent claims 2 and 3 above, respectively, and are therefore also disclosed by Rapake for reasons similar to claims 2 and 3.
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.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka in view of Francois (US 2020/0260116).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Rapaka fails to disclose the recited; however, Francois teaches wherein the constant is determined based on 1 «(bitDepth-1), and the bitDepth represents a bitDepth of an input sample. (paragraphs 0065-0068, bit depth so specified per HEVC)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the bit depth may be offset as recited, because such an offset was specified in the HEVC coding standard and therefore known and used by those of skill in the art before the effective filing date. (paragraph 0066)
Dependent claims 12 and 20 are further coding method claims reciting features similar to claim 4, and are therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Rapaka and Chen for reasons similar to claim 4.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapaka in view of Chen (US 2018/0063527).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Rapaka fails to disclose the recited; however, Chen discloses exclusive CCLM modes based upon a conditional, thus teaching when the ACT is enabled, cross-component linear mode (CCLM) is not applied to chroma units of the current block, because a specified CCLM is not applied when the conditional is met. (paragraph 0074)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the teaching of Chen to Rapaka because Chen teaches exclusive CCLM application based on a conditional may improve video data compression performance relative to the existing CCLM techniques because the techniques of this disclosure are able to take advantage of the correlation between components of a picture, such as luma and chroma components of a picture. (paragraph 0076)
Dependent claim 16 is an encoding method claim reciting features similar to claim 8, and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Rapaka and Chen for reasons similar to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu (US 2009/0052527) discloses color transform subsequent to prediction at decoder.
Ding (US 2010/0172582) discloses color transform subsequent to prediction at decoder.
Song (US 2008/0031518) discloses color transform subsequent to prediction at decoder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights