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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4-20 are pending. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1, 12, 14 and 19-20 are amended. Support for the amendments was found in the originally filed claims 3 and 12. No new matter was added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed August 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the previous non-final office action, claims 1-2 and 15-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0366818 (hereinafter "Zhang"). Claims 3-6 and 9-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of WO Publication No. 2023016439 A1 (hereinafter "Wang").
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, and 18-20 to incorporate the feature:
"wherein the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are based on cross-component prediction (CCP), and training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first coding scheme are different from training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second coding scheme."
Applicant argues that Zhang and Wang fail to disclose this feature because the Wang allegedly does not disclose using different training samples for two different coding schemes. Remarks, page 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, and 18-20 based on original claims 3 and 12. However, the amendments exclude “the first intra fusion scheme” and “the second intra fusion scheme,” as presented in original claim 12.
In the previous rejection, Wang, the secondary reference, was relied on for disclosing “training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme.” Non-final, page 11, mailed May 21, 2026.
Considering the change in scope brought on by the absence of the previously claimed first and second intra fusion schemes, the primary reference, Zhang discloses training samples for the first chroma component for a first encoding scheme are different from training samples are the second chroma component for a second coding scheme.
Zhang discloses a first chroma component prediction scheme using CB/Y (Chrom Blue/Luma) samples 220, and a second component chroma prediction scheme using CR/Y (Chroma Red/Luma) samples 210 (Zhang, Figs. 2, and 4). CB and CR samples used for each respective scheme are different, as claimed. See Zhang, Figs. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not explicitly use the term “cross-component prediction (CCP) and instead uses the term “cross-chroma” prediction. CCP is a coding technique that uses luma components for chroma prediction. Cross-chroma prediction is a specialized type of CCP. CCP is implied by Zhang, as seen at least in Fig. 2, where luma components and chroma components are used for chroma prediction (Zhang, Abstract; ¶ [0014]). The obviousness rejection over Zhang in view of Wang is relied on to clarify this distinction.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses cross-component prediction to determine a prediction for at least one chroma component of a target block. Abstract; page 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are based on cross-component prediction (CCP), as taught by Wang, in order to improve video coding efficiency by reducing inter-channel redundancy. Wang, page 20.
For at least the above mentioned reasons, the combination of Zhang in view of Wang disclose the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are based on cross-component prediction (CCP), and training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first coding scheme are different from training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second coding scheme.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 include removing the terms “the first intra fusion scheme” and “the second intra fusion scheme,” as presented in original claim 12. Therefore, the combination Zhang and Wang disclose the features recited in claim 12.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 18-20 are unpatentable over the cited references. Claims 2, and 4-17 depend on claim 1, and are therefore unpatentable at least by virtue of their dependency.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20170366818 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”) in further view of Wang et al., (WO 2023016439 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Zhang: Decoding first and non-first chroma component. Fig. 4 blocks 440 and 460), wherein a first chroma component of the current video block is coded based on a first coding scheme, a second chroma component of the current video block is coded based on a second coding scheme, the second chroma component is different from the first chroma component and the second coding scheme is different from the first coding scheme (Xu: decode Intra prediction coded chroma data that allows two different chroma blocks in a coding unit to use different chroma Intra prediction modes. ¶ [0029]);
wherein the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are based on cross-component prediction (CCP), and training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first coding scheme are different from training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second coding scheme (Zhang: CB/Y (Chrom Blue/Luma) samples and CR/Y (Chroma Red/Luma) samples. Figs. 2, and 4).
Zhang does not explicitly use the term “cross-component prediction (CCP) and instead uses the term “cross-chroma” prediction. CCP is a coding technique that uses luma components for chroma prediction. Cross-chroma prediction is a specialized type of cross-component prediction. CCP is implied by Zhang, as seen at least in Fig. 2, wherein luma samples are used for chroma prediction (Zhang, Abstract; ¶ [0014]).
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses cross-component prediction to determine a prediction for at least one chroma component of a target block. Abstract; page 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are based on cross-component prediction (CCP), as taught by Wang, in order to improve video coding efficiency by reducing inter-channel redundancy. Wang, page 20.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first chroma component is a Cb component and the second chroma component is a Cr component (Zhang: non-first chroma component (e.g. Cr) and first component (e.g. Cb) ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are determined based on template-cost-based scheme.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are determined based on template-cost-based scheme (Zhang: Fig. 20… the DIMD calculates the absolute difference (SAD) between the reconstructed template samples and its prediction samples obtained from the reference samples of the template. The intra prediction mode that yields the minimum SAD is selected as the final intra prediction mode of the target unit. ¶ [0030]. Figs. 25a-25j illustrate templates used in the derivation of 1PM for Chroma, respectively ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first coding scheme and the second coding scheme are determined based on template-cost-based scheme, as taught by Wang, in order to improve prediction accuracy for each chroma component without increasing the bitrate.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 4, wherein a template cost for the first chroma component and a template cost for the second chroma component are determined separately.
However, Wang discloses wherein a template cost for the first chroma component and a template cost for the second chroma component are determined separately (Wang: Figs. 25a-25j illustrate templates used in the derivation of 1PM for Chroma, respectively ¶ [0035]. iii. In one example, the template consists of samples of component A may be used to derive the IPM for component A. (e.g., A may be Cb or Cr). iv. In one example, the template consists of samples of component A may be used to derive the IPM for component B. (e.g., A may be Cb, and B may be Cr. e.g., A may be Y, and B may be Cr). 1) In one example, A may consist of more than one component and B may consist of more than one component. Pages 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with wherein a template cost for the first chroma component and a template cost for the second chroma component are determined separately, as taught by Wang, in order to improve prediction accuracy for each chroma component without increasing the bitrate.
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first coding scheme comprises a first intra chroma fusion scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second intra chroma fusion scheme different from the first intra chroma fusion scheme.
However, Wang discloses the first coding scheme comprises a first intra chroma fusion scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second intra chroma fusion scheme different from the first intra chroma fusion scheme (Wang: Wang discloses determining a prediction for at least one chroma component of a target block. See Abstract. In one example, fusion of the predicted signals generated by more than one IPMs may be used as the final prediction of the block for chroma components. Page 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first coding scheme comprises a first intra chroma fusion scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second intra chroma fusion scheme different from the first intra chroma fusion scheme, as taught by Wang, in order to improve color prediction accuracy using information from multiple color components.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 6, wherein both the first intra chroma fusion scheme and the second intra chroma fusion scheme are multi-model based, and a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme, or wherein both the first intra chroma fusion scheme and the second intra chroma fusion scheme are single-model based, and a range of training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from a range of training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme.
However, Wang discloses wherein both the first intra chroma fusion scheme and the second intra chroma fusion scheme are multi-model based, and a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme (Wang: Classification thresholds for multi-model linear models. Page 25), or wherein both the first intra chroma fusion scheme and the second intra chroma fusion scheme are single-model based, and a range of training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from a range of training samples used for determining a CCP model of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme (The claim limitation is written in the alternative. Therefore, only one or the other limitation applies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with wherein both the first intra chroma fusion scheme and the second intra chroma fusion scheme are multi-model based, and a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first intra chroma fusion scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second intra chroma fusion scheme, as taught by Wang, in order to improve coding efficiency while using multiple models.
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first coding scheme comprises a first multi-model CCP scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second multi-model CCP scheme different from the first multi-model CCP scheme.
However Wang discloses wherein the first coding scheme comprises a first multi-model CCP scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second multi-model CCP scheme different from the first multi-model CCP scheme (Wang: Cross Component prediction modes such as multi-model linear models. Page 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first coding scheme comprises a first multi-model CCP scheme, and the second coding scheme comprises a second multi-model CCP scheme different from the first multi-model CCP scheme as taught by Wang, in order to improve compression efficiency by leveraging correlations between brightness and color components.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 10, Zhang does not disclose wherein a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first multi-model CCP scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second multi-model CCP scheme.
However, Wang discloses a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first multi-model CCP scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second multi-model CCP scheme (Wang: Classification thresholds for multi-model linear models. Page 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with a threshold used for classifying samples of the first chroma component for the first multi-model CCP scheme is different from a threshold used for classifying samples of the second chroma component for the second multi-model CCP scheme, as taught by Wang, , in order to improve coding efficiency while using multiple models.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently amended), the combination of Zhang and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a first range of training samples used for determining a CCP model of the first chroma component for the first coding coding (Zhang: CB/Y (Chrom Blue/Luma) samples and CR/Y (Chroma Red/Luma) samples. CB and CR are different chroma ranges. Figs. 2, and 4).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the first range comprises at least one of M rows of training samples or N rows of training samples, the second range comprises at least one of R rows of training samples or Q rows of training samples, and each of M, N, R and Q is a non-negative integer.
However, Wang discloses wherein the first range comprises at least one of M rows of training samples or N rows of training samples, the second range comprises at least one of R rows of training samples or Q rows of training samples, and each of M, N, R and Q is a non-negative integer (Wang: discloses training samples for cross component prediction. Page 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first range comprises at least one of M rows of training samples or N rows of training samples, the second range comprises at least one of R rows of training samples or Q rows of training samples, and each of M, N, R and Q is a non-negative integer, as taught by Wang, in order to improve coding efficiency using multi model cross component prediction.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently amended), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is stored for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of a further video block of the video, the current video block being coded before the further video block.
However, Zhang discloses, wherein a CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is stored for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of a further video block of the video, the current video block being coded before the further video block (Wang: a prediction of the target unit for the at least one chroma component may be obtained using the 1PM. A bitstream of the target unit may be generated based on the prediction and stored in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. ¶ [00136]), or the CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is inherited for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of the further video block, or wherein a CCP parameter for coding the second chroma component is stored for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of a further video block of the video, the current video block being coded before the further video block, or the CCP parameter for coding the second chroma component is inherited for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of the further video block, or wherein a CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is stored for coding the first chroma component of a further video block of the video, and a CCP parameter for coding the second chroma component is stored for coding the second chroma component of the further video block, the current video block being coded before the further video block, or the CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is inherited for coding the first chroma component of the further video block, and the CCP parameter for coding the second chroma component is inherited for coding the second chroma component of the further video block (The claim limitation is written in the alternative. Therefore, only one or the other limitation applies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with wherein a CCP parameter for coding the first chroma component is stored for coding the first chroma component and the second chroma component of a further video block of the video, the current video block being coded before the further video block, as taught by Wang, in order to improve coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 15 (Original), the combination of Zhang and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated at one of the following: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated in one of the following: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a dependency parameter set (DPS), a decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter sets (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is indicated at a region containing more than one sample or pixel, or wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is dependent on coded information (Zhang: Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the combination of Zhang and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (Zhang: The flowcharts (e.g., fig. 4) shown above are intended to illustrate examples of improved chroma Intra prediction for a video encoder and a decoder incorporating embodiments of the present invention. ¶ [0067]).
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Zhang: Fig. 4 Decoding method).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently amended), claim 1 is sustainably similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently amended), claim 1 is sustainably similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently amended), claim 1 is sustainably similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
2. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in further view of Wang and Hou et al., US 20250233986 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hou”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), the combination of Zhang and Wang do not disclose the method of claim 6, wherein a prediction for the first chroma component determined with a non-linear model (non-LM) mode is fused with a further prediction for the first chroma component determined with a first type of linear model (LM), and a prediction for the second chroma component determined with a non-LM mode is fused with a further prediction for the second chroma component determined with a second type of LM different from the first type of LM.
However, Hou discloses wherein a prediction for the first chroma component determined with a non-linear model (non-LM) mode is fused with a further prediction for the first chroma component determined with a first type of linear model (LM), and a prediction for the second chroma component determined with a non-LM mode is fused with a further prediction for the second chroma component determined with a second type of LM different from the first type of LM (Wang: a neural network may be used to correct the prediction output of the CP-CCCM mode to obtain the final prediction value. ¶ [0488])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang and Wang with a prediction for the first chroma component determined with a non-linear model (non-LM) mode is fused with a further prediction for the first chroma component determined with a first type of linear model (LM), and a prediction for the second chroma component determined with a non-LM mode is fused with a further prediction for the second chroma component determined with a second type of LM different from the first type of LM, as taught by Wang, in order to improve coding efficiency by capturing complex, non-linear relationships, as taught by Hou, in order to improve the prediction performance of the linear LM (Hou, ¶ [0488]).
Regarding 8 (Original), Zhang does not disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the first type of LM comprises a multi-model cross-component linear model (MM-CCLM) mode, and the second type of LM comprises a multi-model convolutional cross-component model (MM-CCCM) mode.
However, Wang disclose discloses the first type of LM comprises a multi-model cross-component linear model (MM-CCLM) mode (Wang: Page 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with the first type of LM comprises a multi-model cross-component linear model (MM-CCLM) mode, as taught by Wang, to improve coding efficiency.
Zhang and Wang do not disclose the second type of LM comprises a multi-model convolutional cross-component model (MM-CCCM) mode.
However, Wang discloses the first type of LM comprises a multi-model cross-component linear model (MM-CCLM) mode, and the second type of LM comprises a multi-model convolutional cross-component model (MM-CCCM) mode (Wang: a neural network may be used to correct the prediction output of the CP-CCCM mode to obtain the final prediction value. ¶ [0488])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang and Wang with the first type of LM comprises a multi-model cross-component linear model (MM-CCLM) mode, and the second type of LM comprises a multi-model convolutional cross-component model (MM-CCCM) mode, as taught by Wang, in order to improve coding efficiency by capturing complex, non-linear relationships, as taught by Hou, in order to improve the prediction performance of the linear LM (Hou, ¶ [0488]).
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (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 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights