Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 09/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 19301910 filed on 08/15/2025.
Priority # Filling Data Country
PCT/CN2023/076731 2023-02-17 WO
PCT/CN2023/078828 2023-02-28 WO
PCT/CN2023/086040 2023-04-03 WO
PCT/CN2023/087416 2023-04-10 WO
PCT/CN2023/088516 2023-04-14 WO
PCT/CN2023/092123 2023-05-04 WO PCT/CN2023/124118 2023-10-11 WO
Response to Amendment
5. The amendment filed on 09/17/2026, claims 1, 3, 8, and 18-19 have been amended, claim 20 has been canceled, and claim 21 has been added; therefore, Claims 1-19, 21 are pending.
6. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/17/2026, pages 7-13 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The 112(b) rejection in the non-final 06/17/2026 is withdrawn, due to the amendment filed on 09/17/2026.
However, new ground of rejection is found and presented in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 has been fully considered.
Basically, applicant argued that the prior arts FILIPPOV et al. (CA 3131027).) does not discloses the amended limitation of : "determining a first prediction mode based on template cost" (referred to below as "feature (1)")” and “"the first prediction mode is used
to determine a prediction for at least one color component of the current video block, and the
prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP)
mode for coding the current video block" (referred to below as "feature (2)")” in amended independent claims, since:
“Feature (1), in contrast, requires determining a first prediction mode based on a template
cost. The portions of Filippov cited by the Examiner, including Figs. 7A and 7D and their
corresponding description, do not disclose that cost-based mode-selection operation. Rather,
the cited discussion describes use of a left template and neighboring reference samples to
correlate luma reference samples, which does not identify determining a first prediction mode
based on a template cost”;
“This cited passage concerns a method for deriving CCLM parameters using at most four
neighboring chroma samples and their corresponding down-sampled luma samples. In particular,
Filippov describes setting W' and H' according to whether the LM, LM-A, or LM-L mode is
applied, thereby identifying which neighboring samples, such as the top and/or left templates, are
used to derive the CCLM parameters. The cited passage does not, on its face, state that a first
prediction mode is used to generate a prediction for a color component of the current video block
and that the resulting prediction is then used in a CCP mode to code that current video block.
By contrast, feature (2) requires that the first prediction mode be used to determine a
prediction for at least one color component of the current video block and that the resulting
prediction be used in a CCP mode for coding the current video block. The limitation therefore
links the mode selection, the prediction of a color component of the current block, and the use of
that prediction in CCP coding of the current block. The Examiner treats the chroma block as one color component of the current video block and relies on page 86, which discloses deriving CCLM parameters from at most four neighboring chroma samples and their corresponding down-sampled luma samples. But deriving CCLM parameters from neighboring samples, as described in the cited passage, does not itself disclose the claimed arrangement. The passage does not identify a first prediction mode used to generate a
prediction for a color component of the current video block, or the use of that prediction in a
CCP mode to code the current video block. The distinction is between using neighboring
samples as inputs to derive model parameters and using a prediction for a color component of the
current block in CCP coding of that block. Thus, the cited passage of Filippov does not disclose feature (2)”.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments on 103 rejection has been considered fully and are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection
The applicant also argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
As discussed above, the limitations in independent claims are disclosed by the prior arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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 (pre-AIA ), 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.
8. Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1, it recites limitations of “template cost” in “determining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, a first prediction mode based on template cost”; However, it is not clear what is template cost, which template is used for the template cost and how to calculate the template cost. The Spec. does not give sufficient explanation of it.
it recites limitations of “the first prediction mode” in “performing the conversion based on the first prediction mode”; However, it is not clear how could the conversion is performed based on the first prediction mode, since, as recited, “wherein the first prediction mode is used to determine a prediction for at least one color component of a current video block of the video”, is only for one color component of a current video block of the video; and the conversion, is between a video and a bitstream of the video. How can a prediction mode of a color component of a block determined the conversion between a video and a bitstream?.
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claim 2-17 are unclear.
9. Claim 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17.
10. Claim 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17.
11. Claim 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 20, it recites limitations of “template cost” in “determining a first prediction mode based on template cost”; However, it is not clear what is template cost, which template is used for the template cost and how to calculate the template cost. The Spec. does not give sufficient explanation of it.
it recites limitations of “the first prediction mode” in “generating the bitstream based on the first prediction mode”; However, it is not clear how could a bitstream of a video can be generated based on the first prediction, since, as recited, “the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode for coding the current video block”, is only for one color component of a current video block of the video; and the bitstream, is bitstream of a video. How can a prediction mode of a color component of a block determined bitstream of a video?.
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
14. Claims 1-7, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 12355951) and in view of FILIPPOV et al. (CA 3131027).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a method for video processing (fig. 6, and fig. 20), comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (as shown in fig. 6), a first prediction mode based on template cost (as shown in fig. 20 step S2010; column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components), wherein the first prediction mode is used to determine a prediction for at least one color component of the current video block (column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components) , and the prediction for the at least one color component is used in determining a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode for coding the current video block (column 5, line 15-30, …in response to the first color component being determined as the inter prediction mode, whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode is determined…); and performing the conversion based on the first prediction mode (as shown in fig.6 and fig. 20, step S2030, the conversion is based on the first prediction mode).
It is noticed that Zhao does not disclose explicitly of the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode.
FILIPPOV discloses the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode (fig. 6E, page 1, … intra prediction (such as the chrome intra prediction) using cross component linear modeling (CCLM) and more particularly to spatial filtering used in cross-component linear model for intra prediction with different chrome formats; in which, the CCLM is interpreted as a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode and the chrome intra prediction is used in CCLM mode).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that performing intra prediction using cross-component model (page 17).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao teaches an apparatus for video processing (fig. 6) comprising a processor (fig. 6, 645) and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts (column 8, line 5-40, … the video encoder (403) can include hardware, software, or a combination thereof to enable or implement aspects of the disclosed subject matter as described in more detail below) comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (as shown in fig. 6), a first prediction mode based on template cost (as shown in fig. 20 step S2010; column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components), wherein the first prediction mode is used to determine a prediction for at least one color component of the current video block (column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components) , and the prediction for the at least one color component is used in determining a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode for coding the current video block (column 5, line 15-30, …in response to the first color component being determined as the inter prediction mode, whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode is determined…); and performing the conversion based on the first prediction mode (as shown in fig.6 and fig. 20, step S2030, the conversion is based on the first prediction mode).
It is noticed that Zhao does not disclose explicitly of the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode.
FILIPPOV discloses the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode (fig. 6E, page 1, … intra prediction (such as the chrome intra prediction) using cross component linear modeling (CCLM) and more particularly to spatial filtering used in cross-component linear model for intra prediction with different chrome formats; in which, the CCLM is interpreted as a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode and the chrome intra prediction is used in CCLM mode).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode as a modification to the apparatus for the benefit of that performing intra prediction using cross-component model (page 17).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor (fig. 6, 645) to perform acts comprising (column 8, line 5-40, … the video encoder (403) can include hardware, software, or a combination thereof to enable or implement aspects of the disclosed subject matter as described in more detail below) comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video (as shown in fig. 6), a first prediction mode based on template cost (as shown in fig. 20 step S2010; column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components), wherein the first prediction mode is used to determine a prediction for at least one color component of the current video block (column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components) , and the prediction for the at least one color component is used in determining a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode for coding the current video block (column 5, line 15-30, …in response to the first color component being determined as the inter prediction mode, whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode is determined…); and performing the conversion based on the first prediction mode (as shown in fig.6 and fig. 20, step S2030, the conversion is based on the first prediction mode).
It is noticed that Zhao does not disclose explicitly of the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode.
FILIPPOV discloses the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode (fig. 6E, page 1, … intra prediction (such as the chrome intra prediction) using cross component linear modeling (CCLM) and more particularly to spatial filtering used in cross-component linear model for intra prediction with different chrome formats; in which, the CCLM is interpreted as a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode and the chrome intra prediction is used in CCLM mode).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode as a modification to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for the benefit of that performing intra prediction using cross-component model (page 17).
Regarding claim 21, FILIPPOV teaches a method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising (fig. 6/fig. 20), comprising:
determining a first prediction mode based on template cost (as shown in fig. 20 step S2010; column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components), wherein the first prediction mode is used to determine a prediction for at least one color component of a current video block of the video (column 28, line 25-35, ….a prediction mode of other color components (e.g., one or both of chroma components) of the current block can be determined based on template matching (TM) costs of the other color components) , and the prediction for the at least one color component is used in determining a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode for coding the current video block (column 5, line 15-30, …in response to the first color component being determined as the inter prediction mode, whether the second prediction mode is a cross-component prediction mode is determined…); generating the bitstream based on the first prediction mode (as shown in fig.6 and fig. 20, step S2030, the bitstream is generated based on the first prediction mode);
and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (column 8, line 50-65, … the coded video sequence may be received from a channel (501), which may be a hardware/software link to a storage device which stores the encoded video data).
It is noticed that Zhao does not disclose explicitly of the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode.
FILIPPOV discloses the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode (fig. 6E, page 1, … intra prediction (such as the chrome intra prediction) using cross component linear modeling (CCLM) and more particularly to spatial filtering used in cross-component linear model for intra prediction with different chrome formats; in which, the CCLM is interpreted as a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode and the chrome intra prediction is used in CCLM mode).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the prediction for the at least one color component is used in a cross-component prediction (CCP) mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that performing intra prediction using cross-component model (page 17).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the first prediction mode is one of the following: an intra mode, an inter mode, or an intra block copy (IBC) mode (fig. 2, inter prediction unit 244 or intra prediction unit 254).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that determining a template cost for each of a plurality of candidate prediction modes; and determining the first prediction mode to be a candidate prediction mode with the minimum cost among the plurality of candidate prediction modes (fig. 2, mode selection unit 260; page 34-35, …. Mode selection unit 260 may be configured to determine or select a partitioning for a current block prediction mode (including no partitioning) and a prediction mode (e.g. an intra or inter prediction mode) …the mode selection unit 260 may be configured to select the partitioning and the prediction mode (e.g. from those supported by or available for mode selection unit 260)… which provide the best match or in other words the minimum residual (minimum residual means better compression for transmission or storage), or a minimum signaling overhead (minimum signaling overhead means better compression for transmission or storage), or which considers or balances both; in which, residual and signaling overcome is interpreted as template cost and it is calculated for each prediction mode).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 3 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that a prediction for neighboring samples of the current video block is obtained based on a result of applying a first candidate prediction mode in the plurality of candidate prediction mode to the neighboring samples, or wherein a distortion between a reconstruction for neighboring samples of the current video block and a prediction for the neighboring samples is determined as the template cost for the first candidate prediction mode (fig. 2, prediction block 265 is obtained by based on a result of applying a first candidate prediction mode in the plurality of candidate prediction mode to the neighboring samples; page 34-35, …. The reconstructed picture data is used as reference picture data (i.e., neighboring samples) for prediction, e.g. inter-prediction or intra-prediction, to obtain a prediction block 265 or predictor 265… Mode selection unit 260 may be configured to determine or select a partitioning for a current block prediction mode (including no partitioning) and a prediction mode (e.g. an intra or inter prediction mode) and generate a corresponding prediction block 265, which is used for the calculation of the residual block 205 and for the reconstruction of the reconstructed block 215).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 4 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the neighboring samples comprises at least one of: luma samples neighboring to the current video block, or chroma samples neighboring to the current video block (as shown in fig. 7A/7D, in which, 706/707 are chroma samples neighboring to the current block), or wherein the prediction for the neighboring samples is determined based on a CCP model.
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that wherein the determination of the first prediction mode is performed for different color components together, or wherein the template cost is determined with a single color component, or the template cost is determined with a plurality of color components, or wherein the first prediction mode is shared by different color components (from fig. 2, it shows that the determination of the first prediction mode is performed for the whole block; as shown in fig. 7A, the block includes different color components).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the determination of the first prediction mode is performed for different color components separately, or wherein whether to apply an intra chroma mode to the current video block is determined based on template cost, or wherein how to select a weighting scheme for the current video block is determined based on template cost, or how to select a blending scheme for the current video block is determined based on template cost, or how to select a fusion scheme for the current video block is determined based on template cost, or wherein at least one of the following is determined based on template cost: whether to fuse a plurality of predictions for chroma component of the current video block, or how to fuse the plurality of predictions (fig. 7A, 707 and 706 are different color components from the current block 703; since the prediction mode is for the current block 703, therefore, the prediction mode for 707/706 is determined separated from 703; 34-35, …. … Mode selection unit 260 may be configured to determine or select a partitioning for a current block prediction mode).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that an extended template of the current video block comprises left neighboring samples exceeding a vertical range of the current video block and above neighboring samples exceeding a horizontal range of the current video block, or wherein the extended template comprises left neighboring samples exceeding the vertical range of the current video block, or wherein the extended template comprises above neighboring samples exceeding the horizontal range of the current video block (as shown in fig. 7A/7D, 707 is above neighboring samples exceeding a horizontal range of the current video block and 706 is left neighboring samples exceeding a vertical range of the current video block ).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the extended template comprises top-left neighboring samples of the current video block, or the extended template does not comprise top-left neighboring samples of the current video block, or wherein the extended template is not allowed or used for at least one kind of CCP mode (as shown in fig. 7A/7D, 701 is top-left neighboring samples of the current video block).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 12 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the at least one kind of CCP mode comprises at least one of the following: a CCLM mode, a GLM mode, a GL-CCCM mode, a CCCM with downsampling mode, a CCCM without downsampling mode, or a multiple downsampling filter based CCCM mode (page 1, …intra prediction (such as the chrome intra prediction) using cross component linear modeling (CCLM)).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that multiple downsampling filters are used or allowed for the CCP mode, or wherein whether to use a multiple downsampling filtering mode is indicated by a syntax element, or whether to use a multiple downsampling filtering mode is determined based on cost or coding information, or wherein at least one model for the CCP mode comprises more than one predetermined downsampling filter (page 10, …determining one or more downsampling filters (luma downsampling filter) used in cross-component prediction of a current image block of video data is).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the CCP mode comprises a non-local CCP mode or a cross-component merge mode (as shown in fig. 7A/7D, the CCP mode is a non-local CCP mode since neighboring samples are used).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (fig. 2).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (fig. 3).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
15. Claim 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 12355951) and in view of FILIPPOV et al. (CA 3131027) and further in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 113099221).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhao and FILIPPOV teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
It is noticed that Zhao does not disclose explicitly of information regarding how to classify training samples for different models of the CCP mode is determined based on template cost.
ZHANG discloses of information regarding how to classify training samples for different models of the CCP mode is determined based on template cost (fig. 8, step S810-S870, page 19, … using any one cross-component sample point self-adaptive compensation method to classify the chroma pixel… The classification module 133 is used for classifying the chrominance pixels based on the reference luminance mode. the cross-component sample point self-adaptive compensation device is used for selecting at least ten candidate brightness modes; selecting reference brightness mode in the candidate brightness mode to classify the chroma pixels… enhancing image reconstruction quality and improving coding efficiency; in which, there are different models of the CCP mode (at least ten candidate brightness modes) and the chroma pixels are training samples which is classified based on template cost ( reconstruction quality)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that information regarding how to classify training samples for different models of the CCP mode is determined based on template cost as a modification to the method for the benefit of that enhancing image reconstruction quality and improving coding efficiency (page 19).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhao, FILIPPOV and ZHANG teaches the limitations recited in claim 9 as discussed above. In addition, FILIPPOV further discloses that the information comprises whether to use neighboring luma samples of the current video block or collocated luma samples of chroma samples of the current video block (as shown in fig. 7A/7D, neighboring luma samples of the current video block is used); and ZHANG further discloses that determine a threshold for classifying the training samples (fig. 8, step S810-S870, page 19, … using any one cross-component sample point self-adaptive compensation method to classify the chroma pixel… the selecting module 132 is used for selecting the reference luminance mode of the chrominance pixel from the candidate luminance mode set …The classification module 133 is used for classifying the chrominance pixels based on the reference luminance mode. the cross-component sample point self-adaptive compensation device is used for selecting at least ten candidate brightness modes; selecting reference brightness mode in the candidate brightness mode to classify the chroma pixels… enhancing image reconstruction quality and improving coding efficiency; in which, when selecting module select a mode, it is based on a threshold (i.e., select a mode based on some comparison)).
The motivation of combination is the same as in claim 9’s rejection.
16. Conclusion
. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
17. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights