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 § 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 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.
(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.
(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.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LI et al. (WO 2021/110116).
Regarding claim 20, LI teaches 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 (paragraph 00177), wherein the method comprise (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. 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(I)(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 computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure, which 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 LI.
Claims 1-3,6,8-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tseng
et al. (US 2026/0149812).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses a method for video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (e.g., figs. 1a-1b), a plurality of gradient linear models (GLMs) for the current video unit (e.g., gradient Linear Model, abstract, paragraphs 0052-0054,0066), the current video unit comprising a GLM mode coded chroma block (e.g., paragraphs 0052-0054,0066,0110), determining a prediction of the current video unit based on the plurality of GLMs (e.g., paragraphs 0052-0055,0066) and performing the conversion based on the prediction (e.g., encoding/decoding process based on prediction mode, abstract, figs. 1a-1b, paragraphs 0052-0055).
Regarding claim 2, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: separating samples of the current video unit into a plurality of groups for the plurality of GLMs based on a group of neighboring samples of the current video unit, the samples of the current video unit comprising at least one of; luma samples or chroma samples (e.g., paragraphs 0034-0035,0073,0108,etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Tseng discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the group of neighboring samples of the current video unit comprises at least one of; luma samples neighboring to the current video unit, neighboring reconstruction samples of the current video unit, neighboring prediction samples of the current video unit, neighboring down-sampled luma samples of the current video unit, or neighboring non-down-sampled luma samples of the current video unit, or wherein the separating of the samples is based on a value of the group of the neighboring samples of the current video unit, the value comprises at least one of; an average value, a mid-value or a middle value (e.g., the claim is in an alternative format, and paragraphs 0008,0017,0034-0037,0100,0104,etc. meets one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 6, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising; separating samples of the current video unit into a plurality of groups for the plurality of GLMs based on a cost comparison between a plurality of candidate classification tools (e.g., paragraphs 0052-0054,0103,0150-0151).
Regarding claim 8, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1,wherein for each of the plurality of GLMs, at least one of a coefficient or a parameter of the GLM is determined based on a gaussian elimination equation (e.g., LDL, e.g., equivalent to, gaussian elimination equation, in paragraph 0050-0054).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current video unit is multi-model GLM coded, and at least one mode of the following modes is supported for the current video unit: a multi-model linear model (MMLM) using both left and above neighboring samples (MMLMTL) mode, an MMLM using above neighboring samples (MMLMT) mode, or an MMLM using left neighboring samples (MMLML) mode (e.g., fig. 2, paragraphs 0019,0024,0034,0036,0041,0069,0108,
0110,etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the at least one mode is indicated in the bitstream, or wherein the at least one mode is determined based on neighboring information, the neighboring information comprising a template cost, or wherein a flag for enabling the GLM is indicated as true for at least one of the MMLM_TL mode, the MMLM_T mode, or the MMLM_L mode (e.g., flag disclosed throughout the disclosure, also see paragraphs 0052-0055,0150-0151,0153,
etc., meets at least one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 11, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current video unit is multi-model GLM coded, and a multi- model linear model (MMLM) using both left and above neighboring samples (MMLMTL) mode is supported for the current video unit (e.g., fig. 2, paragraphs 0019,0024,0034,0036,0041,0069,0108,0110,etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein whether to and/or how to apply a multi-model GLM mode is based on at least one of; coding information, a block width, a block height, a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a dual tree, a local dual tree, a color format, or a chroma format (e.g., paragraphs 0030,0133-0134,0144,0149,0158,etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is applied to a GLM mode, and at least one of the following conditions is satisfied; a first condition that the GLM mode considers both gradient and down-sampled luma value for model calculation, a second condition that the GLM mode considers a non-down-sampled luma value for model calculation, or a third condition that model parameters of the GLM mode are determined from a gaussian elimination solver or an LDL based solver (e.g., paragraphs 0008-0009,0026,0052-0055,etc., meets at least one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 15, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein how to apply the plurality of GLM models is based on cost comparison (e.g., paragraphs 0145,0157,0150-0151,etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Tseng discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of GLM models are with different down-sampled or non-down-sampled luma values, or wherein the method further comprises: applying a first GLM approach to chroma samples neighboring to the current video unit to obtain a first prediction on the neighboring samples; determining a distortion between reconstructed neighboring samples and predicted neighboring samples as a cost for the first GLM approach, wherein the distortion comprises a sum of absolute difference (SAD); and determining a GLM approach with a minimum cost as a selected GLM approach for the conversion (e.g., paragraphs 0103,
0133).
Regarding claim 17, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream (e.g., figs. 1a-1b).
Regarding claims 18-19, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and directed to computer implemented process of the video, since the video processing, encoding/decoding as disclosed by the reference is a computer implemented process, the software and/or instruction would be necessitated by the process, therefore the rejection of claim 1 also applies here (please see figs. 1a-1b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US
2026/0149812) in view of Chiang et al. (US 2026/0222556).
Regarding claim 4, Tseng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising; separating samples of the current video unit into a plurality of groups for the plurality of GLMs based on a group of neighboring samples of the current video unit, the samples of the current video unit comprising at least one of; luma samples or chroma samples, as discussed in claim 2 above.
Tseng, further teaches luma sample which is collocated with the chroma sample to be predicted (e.g., paragraphs 0044,0057), but is silent to clearly teach, group of luma samples in a collocated luma block of the current video unit.
Chiang, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., fig. 3, paragraphs 0071-0072,0099,0100,0108,0239-0242,0267-0272,etc.) considered equivalent to the above limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Chiang, into the video coding system of Tseng, in order to improve the coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tseng and Chiang teach the method of claim 4, wherein the group of luma samples in the collocated luma block comprises at least one of: collocated luma samples of the current video unit, collocated reconstruction samples of the current video unit, collocated prediction samples of the current video unit, collocated down-sampled luma samples of the current video unit, or collocated non-down-sampled luma samples of the current video unit, and/or wherein the separating of the samples is based on a value of the group of collocated samples, the value comprising at least one of: an average value, a mid-value or a middle value (e.g., the claim is in an alternative format, and paragraphs 0008,0017,0034-0037,0100,0104 of Tseng, also paragraphs 0071-0073,0100-0103,0115,0412,etc. of Chiang, meets at least one of the above alternatives).
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US2026/0149812) in view of Chiang et al. (US 2025/0234035).
Regarding claim 12, Tseng teaches the method of claim 11, including using reference/template samples in multiple model CCLM, such as MMLM_T, MMLM_L and/or MMLM_LT.
Tseng is silent to explicitly indicate, wherein an MMLM_T using an above template is not allowed for a multi- model GLM coded video unit, or wherein an MMLML using a left template is not allowed for a multi-model GLM coded video unit, and/or wherein flag for enabling the GLM is indicated as true for the MMLM_TL mode.
Chiang’035, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0223,0262) teaches template selection based on the selected modes, thus considered equivalent to at least one of the above alternatives.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Chiang, into the video coding system of Tseng, in order to improve the coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 7 is 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.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. 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.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights