DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/16/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 15-18 of US 12,388,980 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reason and table provided below.
Instant – 19/270,994
US 12,388,980 B2
Claim 1 – A method of encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising:
encoding or decoding a mode index, wherein the mode index indicates which template from among a plurality of templates is a selected template and
also indicates how many linear models are used for a current coding unit (CU) of a current picture of the video data,
wherein each template of the plurality of templates includes a different set of reconstructed samples that neighbor the current CU;
Claim 1 – A method of coding video data, the method comprising:
Claim 6 – encoding or decoding the mode index, …
Claim 1 – …, wherein a mode index indicates which template from among a plurality of templates is the selected template, …
Claim 6 – …the mode index also indicates how many linear models are used for the current CU…
Claim 1 – wherein each of the templates includes a different set of reconstructed samples that neighbor a current coding unit (CU) of a current picture of the video data, and …
determining, based on a comparison of a threshold and a quantity of reference samples in the selected template, whether the selected template is allowed;
… determining, based on a comparison of a threshold and a quantity of reference samples in a selected template, whether the selected template is allowed, …
based on determining that the selected template is allowed and that a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) mode is to be used, applying the CCCM mode to generate predicted chroma samples of the current CU based on reconstructed luma samples of the current CU and the reference samples in the selected template; and
encoding or decoding the current CU based on the predicted chroma samples of the current CU.
based on determining that the selected template is allowed and that a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) mode is to be used, applying the CCCM mode to predict chroma samples of the current CU based on reconstructed luma samples of the current CU and the reference samples in the selected template; and
encoding or decoding the current CU based on the predicted chroma samples of the current CU.
Claim 2 – wherein the plurality of templates includes two or more of:a first template that includes neighboring reconstructed samples above and left of the current CU,a second template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU, and a third template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU.
Claim 1 – … wherein the plurality of templates includes two or more of: a first template that includes neighboring reconstructed samples above and left of the current CU, a second template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU, or a third template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU …
Claim 3 – the threshold is one of a first threshold or a second threshold, and determining whether the selected template is allowed comprises: disallowing the first template based on a quantity of samples in the first template being less than the first threshold; disallowing the second template based on a quantity of samples in the second template being less than the second threshold; and disallowing the third template based on a quantity of samples in the third template being less than the second threshold.
Claim 1 – …the threshold is one of a first threshold or a second threshold, and determining whether the selected template is allowed comprises: disallowing the first template based on a quantity of samples in the first template being less than the first threshold; disallowing the second template based on a quantity of samples in the second template being less than the second threshold; and disallowing the third template based on a quantity of samples in the third template being less than the second threshold …
Claim 4 – one of: the first threshold is equal to the second threshold, or the first threshold is less than the second threshold.
Claim 2 – one of: the first threshold is equal to the second threshold, or the first threshold is less than the second threshold.
Claim 5 – at least one of the first threshold or the second threshold depends on the mode index.
Claim 3 – at least one of the first threshold or second threshold depends on the mode index.
Claim 6 – based on the current CU being at an edge of the current picture, the plurality of templates includes either: two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU, or two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU.
Claim 4 – based on the current CU being at an edge of the current picture, the plurality of templates includes either: two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU, or two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU.
Claim 7 – the plurality of templates includes a first template and a second template that do not overlap, the first template includes samples above and left of the current CU, and the second template includes samples either above or left of the current CU.
Claim 5 – the plurality of templates includes a first template and a second template that do not overlap, the first template includes samples above and left of the current CU, and the second template includes samples either above or left of the current CU.
Claim 8 – applying the CCCM mode comprises: determining coefficients of a filter based on the reference samples in the selected template; down-sampling the reconstructed luma samples of the current CU to generate a down-sampled luma block; and applying a 7-tap filter to luma samples of the down-sampled luma block to generate the predicted chroma samples of the current CU.
Claim 7 - applying the CCCM mode comprises: determining coefficients of a filter based on the reference samples in the selected template; down-sampling the reconstructed luma samples of the current CU to generate a down-sampled luma block; and applying a 7-tap filter to luma samples of the down-sampled luma block to predict the chroma samples of the current CU.
Claim 17 – a display configured to display decoded video data.
Claim 15 – a display configured to display decoded video data.
Claim 18 – the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box.
Claim 16 – the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box.
Claim 19 – the device comprises a video decoder.
Claim 17 – the device comprises a video decoder.
Claim 20 – the device comprises a video encoder.
Claim 18 – the device comprises a video encoder.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 1-8, 17-20 of the instant application differ from claims 1-7, 15-18 of US 12,388,980 B2 merely in wording and semantic, and the difference do not alter the scope of the corresponding claims. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention to recognize the claims have equivalent scope despite the difference.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a device for encoding or decoding video data, the device comprising: a memory configured to store the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1-8, and are non-patentable for the same reason as previously indicated.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astola (WO 2023187250 A1) in view of Li (“EE2-1.2: On chroma intra prediction”, 04/20/2022, Joint Video Experts Team of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, submitted IDS on 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Astola discloses a method of encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising (Astola; Para. [0058], 4a,b. A video encoding/decoding system is used for video coding.):
encoding or decoding a mode index, wherein the mode index indicates which template from among a plurality of templates is a selected template of a current picture of the video data, wherein each template of the plurality of templates includes a different set of reconstructed samples that neighbor the current CU (Astola; Para. [0181]. A specific coded number of template/reference samples is determined to be allowed from different numbers of reference samples such that a particular CCCM model is indicated from different CCCM models, wherein each different numbers of template samples are associated with different reconstructed samples neighboring a current block of video data.);
determining, based on a comparison of a threshold and a quantity of reference samples in the selected template, whether the selected template is allowed (Astola; Para. [0181]. A specific number of template/reference samples is determined to be allowed from different numbers of reference samples such that a particular CCCM model is indicated from different CCCM models, wherein each different numbers of template samples are associated with different reconstructed samples neighboring a current block of video data.);
based on determining that the selected template is allowed and that a convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) mode is to be used, applying the CCCM mode to generate predicted chroma samples of the current CU based on reconstructed luma samples of the current CU and the reference samples in the selected template (Astola; Para. [0180]. For a number of determined/selected samples being allowed, a CCCM model is used for predicting chroma samples of a current block in accordance with reconstructed luma samples of a current block and a number of selected template samples.); and
encoding or decoding the current CU based on the predicted chroma samples of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0180-181]. A current block is coded in accordance with predicted chroma samples of a current block.).
But it does not specifically disclose the mode index also indicates how many linear models are used for a current coding unit (CU).
However, Li teaches the mode index also indicates how many linear models are used for a current coding unit (CU) (Li; Heading “1 Introduction”. Different mode indexes are used to indicate different linear modes for a current.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Astola to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Li’s teaching wherein different indices are used to indicate different linear models, for the motivation to allow multi-mode linear models (Li; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 2, Astola discloses wherein the plurality of templates includes two or more of: a first template that includes neighboring reconstructed samples above and left of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0181]. Different numbers of template/reference sample include spatial reference samples of at least a first reference of above samples and left samples of a current block.), a second template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU (Astola; Para. [0181]. Different numbers of template/reference sample include spatial reference samples of at least a second reference of above samples of a current block.), and a third template that is limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0181]. Different numbers of template/reference sample include spatial reference samples of at least a third reference of left samples of a current block.).
Regarding claim 6, Astola discloses wherein, based on the current CU being at an edge of the current picture, the plurality of templates includes either: two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples above the current CU (Astola; Para. [0150]. For a current block being at the bottom right boundary, different numbers of template/reference samples include at least two or more reference samples of neighboring reconstructed samples above a current block.), or two or more templates that are limited to neighboring reconstructed samples left of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0150]. For a current block being at the bottom right boundary, different numbers of template/reference samples include at least two or more reference samples of neighboring reconstructed samples left of a current block.).
Regarding claim 7, Astola discloses wherein: the plurality of templates includes a first template and a second template that do not overlap, the first template includes samples above and left of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0150]. For a current block being at the bottom right boundary, different numbers of template/reference samples include at least a first reference of above and left of a current block.), and the second template includes samples either above or left of the current CU (Astola; Para. [0150]. For a current block being at the bottom right boundary, different numbers of template/reference samples include at least a second reference of above or left of a current block.).
Claims 9-10, 14-15 are directed to a device for encoding or decoding video data, the device comprising: a memory configured to store the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1-2, 6-7, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated..
Regarding claim 17, Astola discloses a display configured to display decoded video data (Astola; Para. [0036]. A video coding system includes at least a display.).
Regarding claim 18, Astola discloses wherein the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box (Astola; Para. [0036]. A video coding system includes at least a camera.).
Regarding claim 19, Astola discloses wherein the device comprises a video decoder (Astola; Para. [0046]. A video coding system includes at least decoder.).
Regarding claim 20, Astola discloses wherein the device comprises a video encoder (Astola; Para. [0046]. A video coding system includes at least an encoder.).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astola (WO 2023187250 A1) in view of Bordes (WO 2024002675 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Astola discloses wherein applying the CCCM mode comprises: determining coefficients of a filter based on the reference samples in the selected template (Astola; Para. [0169]. CCCM mode is used, wherein filter coefficients are determined in accordance with template/reference samples.);
down-sampling the reconstructed luma samples of the current CU to generate a down-sampled luma block ((Astola; Para. [0169]. Reconstructed luma samples are down-sampled to generate down-sampled luma blocks).
But it does not specifically disclose applying a 7-tap filter to luma samples of the down-sampled luma block to predict the chroma samples of the current CU.
However, Bordes applying a 7-tap filter to luma samples of the down-sampled luma block to predict the chroma samples of the current CU (Bordes; Pg. 18, Ln. 4-13. A 7-tap filter is used for luma samples of downsampled block for chroma sample prediction.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Astola to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Bordes’ teaching wherein a 7-tap filter is used for CCCM, for the motivation to perform chroma processing for video coding (Bordes; Abstract.).
Claim 16 is directed to a device for encoding or decoding video data, the device comprising: a memory configured to store the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 9, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deng (US Pub. 20220248025 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs cross-component prediction.
Bandyopadhyay (US Pub. 20220094940 A1) teaches a video coding system for improve linear model estimation for template based video coding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
