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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 17-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of copending Applications and additionally the claims in the rejections listed below for similar mappings and rationales:
19260188
19260113
19260146
1. A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block
based on at least one history table (HT) of CCP models;
and performing the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein the at least one history table of CCP models is updated before or after coding a video unit.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one CCP model comprises at least one of: a cross-component linear model (CCLM), a variant of CCLM, a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM), or a variant of CCCM.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
18. An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on at least one history table (HT) of CCP models; and perform the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein the at least one history table of CCP models is updated before or after coding a video unit.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on at least one history table (HT) of CCP models; and performing the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein the at least one history table of CCP models is updated before or after coding a video unit.
20. 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: determining at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model for a current video block of the video based on at least one history table (HT) of CCP models; and generating the bitstream based on the at least one CCP model, wherein the at least one history table of CCP models is updated before or after coding a video unit.
1. A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model of the current video block;
and performing the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein at least one history table (HT) of CCP model is determined based on the at least one CCP model.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one CCP model comprises at least one of: a cross-component linear model (CCLM), or a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM).
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
l8. An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model of the current video block; and perform the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein at least one history table (HT) of CCP model is determined based on the at least one CCP model.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model of the current video block; and performing the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein at least one history table (HT) of CCP model is determined based on the at least one CCP model.
20. 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: determining at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model of a current video block of the video; and generating the bitstream based on the at least one CCPmodel, wherein at least one history table (HT) of CCP model is determined based on the at least one CCP model.
1. A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block
based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; and performing the conversion based on the prediction.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
18. An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determine a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; and perform the conversion based on the prediction.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; and performing the conversion based on the prediction.
20. 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: determining at least one target cross component prediction (CCP) model for a current video block of the video based on a history table of CCP models or a list of CCP candidates; determining a prediction of the current video block based on CCP information of the at least one target CCP model; and generating the bitstream based on the prediction.
The limitations that are not addressed above and not explicitly disclosed, however Lim teaches what is mapped below in the 103 rejection
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to CCLM technique exploits the correlation by predicting the chroma components of a block from the collocated reconstructed luma samples by linear models whose parameters are derived from already reconstructed luma and chroma samples that are adjacent to the block (Chubach 0009)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chubach et al. US 2025/0024072.
In regard to claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, the identified claim and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by
Chubach, which discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (0082)
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chubach et al. US 2025/0024072.
Chubach discloses:
18. and under similar rationales 1, 19, 20, An apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (0082), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one cross component prediction (CCP) model for the current video block based on at least one history table (HT) of CCP models (Figs. 1; 0072-3); and perform the conversion based on the at least one CCP model, wherein the at least one history table of CCP models is updated before or after coding a video unit (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one CCP model comprises at least one of: a cross-component linear model (CCLM), a variant of CCLM, a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM), or a variant of CCCM (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one history table is updated at a beginning of coding the video unit comprising the current video block, the video unit comprising at least one of: a sequence, a picture, a slice, a tile, a sub-picture, a coding tree unit (CTU), or a CTU row, and/or wherein updating the at least one history table comprises one of: emptying the at least one history table; or filling the at least one history table with default entries (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one history table is updated after coding the video unit, the video unit comprising a coding unit (CU), and/or wherein a dual-tree coding is applied, and the coding unit comprises a chroma coding unit, wherein the coding unit is coded with a CCP mode (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein a target history table to be updated of the at least one history table is based on a coding mode of the coding unit, wherein the coding mode of the coding unit comprises at least one of: a cross-component linear model (CCLM), a CCLM based on top neighboring samples of the coding unit (CCLM-T), a CCLM based on left neighboring samples of the coding unit (CCLM-L), a multi-model based CCLM (MM-CCLM), a multi-model based CCLM-T (MM-CCCM-T), multi-model based CCLM-L (MM-CCCM-L), a gradient linear model (GLM), or a CCLM with slope adjustment, and wherein a set of CCP models and related information for classifying samples into a plurality of groups of CCP models are stored in a first history table of the at least one history table, the first history table being associated with CCLM (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chubach et al. US 2025/0024072 in view of Zhao et al. US 2024/0015279
7. The method of claim 4, before being used to update the at least one history table (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhao teaches wherein the coding unit is coded with a cross-component linear model (CCLM) with slope adjustment, and a corresponding CCP model is adjusted by the slope adjustment (0201-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to use the slope adjustment can be determined based on a trade-off consideration between a coding efficiency and a coding complexity (Zhao 0204)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chubach et al. US 2025/0024072 in view of Nam et al. WO 2021112633
12. The method of claim 1,
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Nam teaches wherein a maximum size of a history table of the at least one history table is predetermined, wherein the maximum size is 5 or 6, or wherein a syntax element (SE) in the bitstream indicates a maximum size of a history table of the at least one history table, wherein the syntax element is at one of: a block level, a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, wherein the syntax element is in at least one of the following coding structures: a coding tree unit (CTU), a coding unit (CU), a transform unit (TU), a prediction unit (PU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding block (CB), a transform block (TB), a prediction block (PB), a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a Video Parameter Set (VPS), a decoded parameter set (DPS), Decoding Capability Information (DCI), a Picture Parameter Set (PPS), an Adaptation Parameter Set (APS), a slice header or a tile group header (pg. 21 first par.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to use the slope adjustment can be determined based on a trade-off consideration between a coding efficiency and a coding complexity (Zhao 0204)
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chubach et al. US 2025/0024072 in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0006787
13. The method of claim 1,
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches wherein a maximum size of a history table of the at least one history table is determined based on coding information, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a mode of the current video block, a mode of a neighbouring block of the current video block, a mode of a luma block in a collocated region of the current video block, a mode of a luma block in the collocated region of a neighbouring block of the current video block, a quantization parameter (QP), a slice type, a picture type, a width or a height of a picture, a width or a height of a block, or reconstructed samples of the current video block (0358-90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to depend on a function of one or multiple motion candidate list sizes (Zhang 0359)
14. The method of claim 1, wherein an entry of the at least one history table includes CCP models for a plurality of chroma components, wherein the plurality of chroma components comprises a first chroma component and a second chroma component, wherein the entry is selected for the current video block, and the first and second chroma components of the current video block is coded by corresponding CCP models in the entry (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches using one or multiple tables for various different reasons that are often different but related e.g. two tables for uni and bi predicted respectively (0306-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to depend on a function of one or multiple motion candidate list sizes (Zhang 0359)
15. The method of claim 1, wherein an entry of the at least one history table includes a CCP model for a single color component, wherein the single color component comprises a first chroma component or a second chroma component, and/or wherein the entry is selected for the current video block, and a corresponding color component of the current video block is coded by the CCP model in the entry (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches using one or multiple tables for various different reasons that are often different but related e.g. two tables for uni and bi predicted respectively (0306-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to depend on a function of one or multiple motion candidate list sizes (Zhang 0359)
16. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of history tables of CCP models are determined for a plurality of color components (Figs. 1; 0009-13; 0072-3).
Chubach does not explicitly disclose the following, however Zhang teaches using one or multiple tables for various different reasons that are often different but related e.g. two tables for uni and bi predicted respectively (0306-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to depend on a function of one or multiple motion candidate list sizes (Zhang 0359)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8-11 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 JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights