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 . 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a phrase that can be implied (“Embodiments of the disclosure provide a solution for video processing”).
Appropriate correction is required. Also see MPEP 608.01(b), Paragraph C – “Language and Format”.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There should be a comma (,) in between the expression for “sum” and the expression for “W”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim 9-10, 14-16, 20 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9. However, due to the extensive use of "or" and "and/or" terms in the claim limitations, there are numerous combinations of limitations between claim 10 and claim 9, which create antecedent basis violations in the claims. The identification of each and every antecedent violation is a tedious process. Similarly, claims 14-16 are inter dependent and like above, there are numerous combinations of limitations among claims 14-16, which create antecedent basis violations in the claims. However, for example, the Examiner just provides one antecedent basis violation here. The Applicant is required to identify and fix all the violations similar to the following one.
In claim 9, with BRI, the last limitation “wherein a lookup table is used to calculate the offset for the template or the offset for the i-th model” is the only limitation of claim 9. With that limitation of claim 9, claim 10 limitation of “wherein an offset is determined as:
D = sign(sum) X ((|sum| + off) >> W), and
wherein
s
u
m
=
∑
k
=
0
M
-
1
Sk
W = [Log2 |sum|], D represents the offset, M represents the number of samples of the template” becomes meaningless because Sk is undefined. There are numerous such combinations which create indefiniteness issues.
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises:”. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream of a video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video block into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises”, followed by the functional steps of the method and finally a functional step to store the generated bitstream into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1).
Claim 20’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises:..” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, whose scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0151]).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US PGPub 2026/0189688 A1) (Inventive concept disclosed in 63/384,241 dated 11/18/2022) in view of Jhu et al. (US PGPub 2025/0097436 A1) (Inventive concept disclosed in 63/349,430 dated 06/06/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang et al. teach a method of video processing (Abstract), comprising:
generating, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Fig. 1A), a prediction value of the video unit based on a cross-component prediction candidate ([0116], L8-17; it teaches that a prediction candidate list comprising one or more inherited cross-component prediction candidates from a cross-component model history table is determined);
modifying the prediction value of the video unit ([0215]; it teaches that after obtaining the inherited model, the coding information of the current block is then updated according to the inherited candidate model);
obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value ([0215]; it also teaches that at the prediction stage or reconstruction stage, the candidate list is derived, and the inherited candidate model is then determined by the inherited candidate index wherein the prediction of the current block is generated according to the updated coding information, which means the prediction value is modified. Now in [0004], in view of Fig. 1A, we can see that the transformed and quantized residues are processed by Inverse Quantization 124 and Inverse Transformation 126 to recover the residues and the residues are then added back to prediction data 136 at Reconstruction 128 to reconstruct video data); and
performing the conversion based on the reconstructed sample value (Fig. 1A shows the conversion process after feeding back the reconstructed sample value from 128 into the intra-prediction block 110).
Although, Chuang et al. teach updating the coding information during prediction process, it does not explicitly say modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value.
However, Jhu et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video processing method where it explicitly teaches modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value (Jhu et al.; [0253]; it teaches that the linear weighted plus offset value directly forms the predicted chroma sample (which is analogous to modifying the predicted value), and it is then added by the residual to form the reconstructed chroma sample).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Chuang et al’s invention of inheriting shared cross-component linear model with history table in video coding system to include Jhu et al's modification of prediction value in order to generate reconstructed sample because it enhances the coding efficiency of the coding tool of cross-component prediction, cross-component linear model (CCLM), that is applied in the ECM (Jhu et al.; [0098]).
Regarding claim 2, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein an offset is added to or subtracted from the prediction value (Jhu et al.; [0253]; it teaches that the linear weighted plus offset value directly forms the predicted chroma sample, which means the offset is added).
Regarding claim 3, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the offset is derived based on luma samples and/or chroma samples of a template (Chuang et al.; [0104]; it teaches that a scalar offset between the input and output (similarly to the offset term in CCLM) is set to the middle chroma value, which means it is derived based on chroma samples).
Regarding claim 4, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 3, wherein the template is calculated using reconstructed samples neighbouring to a current block (Chuang et al.; [0064] shows the reconstructed samples, wherein in [0199] it teaches that models are derived by CCLM, MMLM, or CCCM using the neighbouring reconstructed samples of the current block).
Regarding claim 5, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 4, wherein the template comprises reconstructed samples left to the current block, if the reconstructed samples left to the current block are available (Chuang et al.; [0065]-[0072]; In [0065] it says that the CCLM parameters (α and β) are derived with at most four neighbouring chroma samples and their corresponding down-sampled luma samples, wherein in [0072] it says when LM-L mode is applied or only the left neighbouring samples are available), or
wherein the template comprises reconstructed samples above to the current block, if the reconstructed samples above to the current block are available, or
wherein the template comprises reconstructed samples above or left to the current block, if the reconstructed samples above or left to the current block are available, or
wherein corresponding luma samples of the template are down-sampled with the same manner as 1uma samples inside the current block.
Regarding claim 6, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein if there are a predetermined number of models required by a cross-component prediction type, the predetermined number of offsets are derived for the predetermined number of models (Chuang et al.; [0199]; It teaches that if the model of a candidate is similar to one of existing candidate models, it can adjust the inherited model parameters so that the inherited model is different from the existing candidate models by adding a predefined offset (e.g., 1>>S or −(1>>S), where S is the shift parameter) so that the inherited parameter is different from the existing candidate models. The same concept is disclosed in [0157], [0159], where it says the guided parameter set is added to the derived model parameters as the final model parameters, where the guided parameter set is an offset parameter (dB) which when added to the derived offset parameter as shown in [0159], it gives the new offset for that particular model).
Regarding claim 7, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 6, wherein the i-th offset from the predetermined number of offsets is added to or subtracted from the prediction value which is generated by the i-th model from the predetermined number of models, wherein i is an integer number (Chuang et al.; [0217]; it teaches that if a cross-component model has M parameters, the j-th parameter of the final cross-component model is the weighted-averaging of the j-th parameter of the k selected candidate, where j is 1 . . . M. Which means the offset parameters for each of the k candidate models are calculated from the corresponding scaling parameters as shown in the equations in [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein a cross-component prediction method indicated by a type of the cross-component prediction candidate (Chuang et al.; [0123]; It teaches about different types of cross-component models) is applied on a template which is calculated using reconstructed samples neighbouring to a current block (Chuang et al.; [0064] shows the reconstructed samples, wherein in [0199] it teaches that models are derived by CCLM, MMLM, or CCCM using the neighbouring reconstructed samples of the current block).
Regarding claim 9, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein for the k-th sample of the template, Sk is calculated as Rk-Pk, wherein Sk represents the k-th delta value, Rk represents the reconstructed sample value, and Pk represents the prediction value of the k-th sample, or
wherein for the k-th sample using the i-th model of the template, Sik is calculated as Rik- Pik, wherein Sik represents the k-th delta value using the i-th model, Rik represents reconstructed sample value of the k-th sample using the i-th model, and Pik represents the prediction value of the k-th sample using the i-th model, and/or
wherein no division operation is used to calculate an offset for the template or an offset for the i-th model, or
wherein a lookup table is used to calculate the offset for the template or the offset for the i-th model (Chuang et al.; In [0076], it teaches that the division operation to calculate parameter α is implemented with a look-up table and in [0074], the equations show that the offset β is calculated from the scaling factors α in a look-up table).
Regarding claim 10, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein an offset is determined as an average value of delta values of the template (Chuang et al.; [0198]; It teaches that the offset parameter of a default candidate would be derived by (α+Δα) and the average value of neighbouring luma and chroma samples of the current block), and/or
wherein an offset is determined as:
D = sign(sum) X ((|sum| + off) >> W), and
wherein
s
u
m
=
∑
k
=
0
M
-
1
Sk
W = [Log2 |sum|], D represents the offset, M represents the number of samples of the template, or
wherein an offset for the i-th model is determined as an average value of delta values using the i-th model, and/or
wherein an offset for the i-th model is determined as:
Di =sign(sum) X ((|sum| + off) >>W), and
wherein
s
u
m
=
∑
k
=
0
M
-
1
Sik ,
W = [Log2 |sum|], Di represents the offset, M represents the number of samples using the i-th model.
Regarding claim 11, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein a target type of cross-component prediction applies a modification of the prediction value, and/or
wherein a candidate with a type of cross-component prediction information being non-adjacent is put into a cross-component prediction candidate list (Chuang et al.; [0125]; [0192]; It teaches that if the historical candidates are used, the number of non-adjacent candidates can be reduced by measuring the distance from the left-top position of the current block to the candidate position, and then exclude the candidate with the distance greater than a pre-defined threshold, or in other words, include the candidates with the distance smaller than a pre-defined threshold).
Regarding claim 12, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 11, wherein the cross-component prediction information comprises a position (Chuang et al.; [0222]; it teaches that the final inherited model of the current block is from the cross-component model at the indicated candidate position with a delta position, which tells that the cross-component prediction information comprises the position of the candidate), and/or
positions stored in a backup position list are checked in order to put valid candidates in the cross- component prediction candidate list.
Regarding claim 13, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 12, wherein if the candidate is used to predict the current block, a cross-component prediction model is derived with samples referred to the position (Chuang et al.; [0222]; It teaches that the final inherited model of the current block is from the cross-component model at the indicated candidate position with a delta position).
Regarding claim 14, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein a construction of a cross-component prediction candidate list is terminated if the number of candidates in the cross-component prediction candidate list is M, wherein M=D+1, and D represents an index indicating a selected candidate (Chuang et al.; [0181]; [0194], L1-3; [0195]; All these paragraphs describe fundamentally the same concept which is, when cross-component prediction candidates are added to the list, the addition continues until the maximum candidate number (read candidate index number) is reached), and/or
wherein if all possible potential candidates are checked and a size of the cross-component prediction candidate list is smaller than a threshold, default candidates are put into the cross-component prediction candidate list to fulfill the cross-component prediction candidate list, wherein the threshold is equal to the maximum number of candidates, and/or
wherein a cross-component prediction candidate list comprises at least one candidate fetched from a history-based table, and/or
wherein if a chroma block is coded by using at least one cross-component prediction candidate, cross-component prediction information of the cross-component prediction candidate is stored, and/or
wherein if a chroma block is coded by using at least one cross-component prediction candidate, cross-component prediction information of the cross-component prediction candidate is put into a history-based table.
Regarding claim 15, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 14, wherein the history-based table is an online table, or
wherein the history-based table is a stored table, and/or
wherein to build the cross-component prediction candidate list, potential candidates are checked in an order (Chuang et al.; [0116], L8-13; It teaches that one or more inherited cross-component prediction candidates are inserted into the prediction candidate list according to a pre-defined order).
Regarding claim 16, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 15, wherein the order is as follows: (1) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial adjacent or non-adjacent blocks; (2) cross-component prediction candidate with the type being non-adjacent; (3) history-based candidates from an online table; (4) history-based candidates from stored table; (5) default candidates, or
wherein the order is as follows: (1) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial adjacent blocks; (2) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial non-adjacent blocks; (3) cross-component prediction candidate with the type being non-adjacent; (4) history-based candidates from an online table; (5) history-based candidates from a stored table; (6) default candidates, or
wherein the order is as follows: (1) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial adjacent blocks; (2) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial non-adjacent blocks; (3) history-based candidates from an online table; (4) history-based candidates from a stored table; (5) cross-component prediction candidate with the type being non-adjacent; (6) default candidates, or
wherein the order is as follows: (1) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial adjacent blocks; (2) history-based candidates from an online table; (3) cross-component prediction information stored in spatial non-adjacent blocks; (4) cross-component prediction candidate with the type being non-adjacent; (5) history-based candidates from a stored table; (6) default candidates, or
wherein a type of candidate is removed from the order (Chuang et al.; [0211]; it teaches that if a candidate is considered redundant, it can be removed from the list).
Regarding claim 17, Chuang et al. and Jhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (Chuang et al.; Fig. 1A), or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Chuang et al.; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 18, Chuang et al. teach an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon ([0234]), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method ([0228]), wherein the method comprises:
generating, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Fig. 1A), a prediction value of the video unit based on a cross-component prediction candidate ([0116], L8-17; it teaches that a prediction candidate list comprising one or more inherited cross-component prediction candidates from a cross-component model history table is determined);
modifying the prediction value of the video unit ([0215]; it teaches that after obtaining the inherited model, the coding information of the current block is then updated according to the inherited candidate model);
obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value ([0215]; it also teaches that at the prediction stage or reconstruction stage, the candidate list is derived, and the inherited candidate model is then determined by the inherited candidate index wherein the prediction of the current block is generated according to the updated coding information, which means the prediction value is modified. Now in [0004], in view of Fig. 1A, we can see that the transformed and quantized residues are processed by Inverse Quantization 124 and Inverse Transformation 126 to recover the residues and the residues are then added back to prediction data 136 at Reconstruction 128 to reconstruct video data); and
performing the conversion based on the reconstructed sample value (Fig. 1A shows the conversion process after feeding back the reconstructed sample value from 128 into the intra-prediction block 110).
Although Chuang et al. teach updating the coding information during prediction process, it does not explicitly say modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value.
However, Jhu et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video processing method where it explicitly teaches modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value (Jhu et al.; [0253]; it teaches that the linear weighted plus offset value directly forms the predicted chroma sample (which is analogous to modifying the predicted value), and it is then added by the residual to form the reconstructed chroma sample).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Chuang et al’s invention of inheriting shared cross-component linear model with history table in video coding system to include Jhu et al's modification of prediction value in order to generate reconstructed sample because it enhances the coding efficiency of the coding tool of cross-component prediction, cross-component linear model (CCLM), that is applied in the ECM (Jhu et al.; [0098]).
Regarding claim 19, Chuang et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method ([0234]), wherein the method comprises:
generating, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (Fig. 1A), a prediction value of the video unit based on a cross-component prediction candidate ([0116], L8-17; it teaches that a prediction candidate list comprising one or more inherited cross-component prediction candidates from a cross-component model history table is determined);
modifying the prediction value of the video unit ([0215]; it teaches that after obtaining the inherited model, the coding information of the current block is then updated according to the inherited candidate model);
obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value ([0215]; it also teaches that at the prediction stage or reconstruction stage, the candidate list is derived, and the inherited candidate model is then determined by the inherited candidate index wherein the prediction of the current block is generated according to the updated coding information, which means the prediction value is modified. Now in [0004], in view of Fig. 1A, we can see that the transformed and quantized residues are processed by Inverse Quantization 124 and Inverse Transformation 126 to recover the residues and the residues are then added back to prediction data 136 at Reconstruction 128 to reconstruct video data); and
performing the conversion based on the reconstructed sample value (Fig. 1A shows the conversion process after feeding back the reconstructed sample value from 128 into the intra-prediction block 110).
Although Chuang et al. teach updating the coding information during prediction process, it does not explicitly say modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value.
However, Jhu et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video processing method where it explicitly teaches modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value (Jhu et al.; [0253]; it teaches that the linear weighted plus offset value directly forms the predicted chroma sample (which is analogous to modifying the predicted value), and it is then added by the residual to form the reconstructed chroma sample).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Chuang et al’s invention of inheriting shared cross-component linear model with history table in video coding system to include Jhu et al's modification of prediction value in order to generate reconstructed sample because it enhances the coding efficiency of the coding tool of cross-component prediction, cross-component linear model (CCLM), that is applied in the ECM (Jhu et al.; [0098]).
Regarding claim 20, Chuang et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing ([0228]), wherein the method comprises:
generating a prediction value of a video unit of the video based on a cross-component prediction candidate ([0116], L8-17; it teaches that a prediction candidate list comprising one or more inherited cross-component prediction candidates from a cross-component model history table is determined);
modifying the prediction value of the video unit ([0215]; it teaches that after obtaining the inherited model, the coding information of the current block is then updated according to the inherited candidate model);
obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value ([0215]; it also teaches that at the prediction stage or reconstruction stage, the candidate list is derived, and the inherited candidate model is then determined by the inherited candidate index wherein the prediction of the current block is generated according to the updated coding information, which means the prediction value is modified. Now in [0004], in view of Fig. 1A, we can see that the transformed and quantized residues are processed by Inverse Quantization 124 and Inverse Transformation 126 to recover the residues and the residues are then added back to prediction data 136 at Reconstruction 128 to reconstruct video data); and
generating the bitstream based on the reconstructed sample value (Fig. 1A shows the conversion process after feeding back the reconstructed sample value from 128 into the intra-prediction block 110).
Although, Chuang et al. teach updating the coding information during prediction prprocess,t does not explicitly say modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value.
However, Jhu et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach a video processing method where it explicitly teaches modifying the prediction value of the video unit and then obtaining a reconstructed sample value based on the modified prediction value (Jhu et al.; [0253]; it teaches that the linear weighted plus offset value directly forms the predicted chroma sample (which is analogous to modifying the predicted value), and it is then added by the residual to form the reconstructed chroma sample).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Chuang et al’s invention of inheriting shared cross-component linear model with history table in video coding system to include Jhu et al's modification of prediction value in order to generate reconstructed sample because it enhances the coding efficiency of the coding tool of cross-component prediction, cross-component linear model (CCLM), that is applied in the ECM (Jhu et al.; [0098]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“DOWNSAMPLING PROCESS FOR LINEAR MODEL PREDICTION MODE” – Zhang et al., US PGPub 2016/0277762 A1.
“METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CROSS COMPONENT LINEAR MODEL FOR INTER PREDICTION IN VIDEO CODING SYSTEM” – Chiang et al., US PGPub 2025/0080756 A1.
“MIXED-MODEL CROSS-COMPONENT PREDICTION MODE” – Zhao et al., US PGPub 2024/0015279 A1.
“METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR CROSS-COMPONENT PREDICTION” – Deng et al., US PGPub 2022/0239897 A1.
“SIMPLIFICATIONS OF CODING MODES BASED ON NEIGHBORING SAMPLES DEPENDENT PARAMETRIC MODELS” - US PGPub 2022/0078405 A1.
“METHOD AND APPARATUS OF CONSTRAINED OVERLAPPED BLOCK MOTION COMPENSATION IN VIDEO CODING” – Lin et al., US PGPub 2021/0274218 A1.
"Enhanced Cross-Component Linear Model for Chroma Intra-Prediction in Video Coding" - Zhang et al., IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 27, NO. 8, AUGUST 2018.
"Simplification on Cross-Component Linear Model in Versatile Video Coding" - Lim et al., Electronics 2020, 9, 1885; doi:10.3390/electronics9111885.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (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 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.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights