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 § 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 1-8, 12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0129458) (Yao-Jen Chang) in view of Li et al. (US 2026/0143139) (Xiang Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses a method of video processing, comprising: generating, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a cross-component prediction candidate list for a chroma block associated with the video unit [See abstract and Paragraphs 6-15 and 84-105].
Chang doesn’t explicitly disclose determining a prediction of the video unit by applying the cross-component prediction candidate list to the video unit; and performing the conversion based on the prediction.
However, Li discloses determining a prediction of the video unit by applying the cross-component prediction candidate list to the video unit [See abstract and Paragraphs 3-20, 37-43 and 80-87]; and performing the conversion based on the prediction [See abstract and Paragraphs 80-87 and 96-104].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chang to add the teachings in Li as above, to provide a method that enables facilitating region-based cross-component prediction and reducing an amount of data in video streams and amount of computing resources consumed by a computing device for processing, transmission or storage of the video data [See Li abstract and Paragraph 1].
Regarding Claim 2, Chang discloses wherein a first syntax element (SE) is indicated to indicate whether a cross-component prediction candidate in the cross-component prediction list is applied to the chroma block, and/or wherein a second syntax element (SE) is indicated to indicate which cross-component prediction candidate is applied [See Paragraphs 129-143 and 196-235].
Regarding Claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the first SE is a flag, or the first SE is coded by a context, or the first SE is indicated in a conditional way, and/or wherein the second SE is an index, or the second SE is binarized as a truncated unary code, or a first bin of the second SE is coded by a context, or the second SE is indicated in a conditional way [See Paragraphs 129-143].
Regarding Claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the first SE is indicated, if cross-component prediction is applied, and/or wherein the first SE is indicated, if cross-component prediction is applied and a target mode is applied [See Paragraphs 129-143 and 196-235].
Regarding Claim 5, Chang discloses wherein the target mode is a cross-component linear model (CCLM), or wherein the target mode is a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) [See Paragraphs xx].
Regarding Claim 6, Chang discloses wherein a maximum value of the second SE is equal to S−1, wherein S is the maximum size of the cross-component prediction candidate list, and/or wherein the second SE is indicated, if a first SE indicates a cross-component prediction candidate in the cross-component prediction list is applied [See Paragraphs 160-171 and 129-143 and 196-235].
Regarding Claim 7, Chang discloses wherein whether the cross-component prediction candidate list mode is applicable is indicated in one of: a video parameter set (VPS), a decoding parameter set (DPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, or a slice header, and/or wherein a maximum size or length of the cross-component prediction candidate list is indicated in one of: a VPS, a DPS, an SPS, a PPS, a picture header, or a slice header [See Paragraphs 81 and 140-141].
Regarding Claim 8, Chang discloses wherein the cross-component prediction candidate list comprises at least one cross-component prediction candidate stored in a spatial neighboring block, and/or wherein the spatial neighboring block is adjacent to a current block, or the spatial neighboring block is non-adjacent to the current block, and/or wherein a set of positions are checked in order to find stored cross-component prediction information [See Paragraphs xx].
Regarding Claim 12, Chang discloses wherein if stored cross-component prediction information is to be put into the cross-component prediction candidate list as a potential candidate, the potential candidate is compared with at least one candidate already in the cross-component prediction candidate list [See Paragraphs 160-185].
Regarding Claim 14, Chang discloses wherein if a cross-component prediction candidate in the cross-component prediction candidate list is used to generate a prediction for a current block, the cross-component prediction is to be performed following the cross-component prediction information [See Paragraphs 153-163].
Regarding Claim 17, Chang discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream [See Paragraphs 54-59, 82-85 and 195-208].
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13, and 15-16 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 TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights