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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 4 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
“the current vide block” in claim 4 should be corrected to “the current video block”. Appropriate correction is required.
“minimizing a different between…” in claim 6 should be corrected to “minimizing a difference between…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
6. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LI et al. (WO 2021/0110116 A1) hereinafter “LI”.
As per 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Provisional Application No. 63/381,943 of Tseng et al. (US 2026/0149812) hereinafter “Tseng”.
As per claim 1, Tseng discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (encoding or decoding methods implemented by encoders or decoders as taught in the last paragraph of page 30), a set of candidate cross-component prediction (CCP) models for a chroma component of the current video block (selection of cross-component models as taught in section 2.3 on pages 28-29; see also section 2.2.5 on page 23) based on coding information associated with the current video block (coding information as taught in section 2.2.9 on page 27);
determining a prediction for the chroma component based on the set of candidate CCP models and a candidate prediction fusion scheme (page 28, section 2.3, The final prediction of the current block could be the combination of multiple cross-component models, or fusion the selected cross-component models with the prediction by non-cross-component coding tools (e.g., intra angular prediction modes, intra planar/DC modes, or inter prediction modes)); and
performing the conversion based on the prediction (last paragraph on page 30, Any of the foregoing proposed methods can be implemented in encoders and/or decoders. For example, any of the proposed methods can be implemented in an inter/intra/prediction module of an encoder, and/or an inter/intra/prediction module of a decoder; see also section 2.2.4 on page 23).
As per claim 2, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one of the set of candidate CCP models is determined based on at least one of the following: an intra convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) mode, an inter CCCM mode, a CCCM using multiple downsampling filters (CCCM-MDF) mode, a gradient and location based convolutional cross-component model (GL-CCCM) mode, a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode, a gradient linear model (GLM) mode, a local-boosting cross-component prediction (LBCCP) mode, a single model based mode, a multi-model based mode, a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) mode, a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode, a derived mode (DM), a linear model based mode, a non-linear model based mode (see first three paragraphs on page 29), or a convolutional model based mode, or wherein types of candidate CCP models that are comprised in the set of candidate CCP models are determined based on a predetermined rule.
As per claim 4, Tseng discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the first candidate CCP model is determined based on a result of minimizing a difference between luma sample values and chroma sample values of the reference area, or wherein the reference area is adjacent to the current video block (see section 1.9 and Figure 11), or the reference area is non-adjacent to the current video block, or the reference area is in a temporally related to the current video block, or the reference area is collocated to the current video block, or wherein the reference area is determined based on a block vector or a motion vector for the current vide block.
As per claim 5, Tseng discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the first candidate CCP model is applied to reconstructed luma samples of the reference area to obtain a prediction of chroma samples of the reference area, and a minimization process is performed based on the prediction of the chroma samples and a reconstruction of the chroma samples (section 1.9 on page 14, see predChromaVal formula and last paragraph).
As per claim 6, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first candidate CCP model in the set of candidate CCP models is determined based on a result of minimizing a different between a reference template and a current template of the current video block (see the part of section 2.2.7 on page, a candidate is considered to be redundant if the template cost difference between it and its predecessor in the list is smaller than a threshold).
As per claim 7, Tseng discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the reference template is adjacent to a reference block of the current video block, or the reference template is non-adjacent to the reference block, or wherein the current template is adjacent to the current video block, or the current template is non-adjacent to the current video block (see Figures 7 and 20), or wherein the first candidate CCP model is applied to samples of the reference template to obtain prediction samples, and a minimization process is performed based on reconstructed samples of the current template and the prediction samples.
As per claim 8, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first candidate CCP model in the set of candidate CCP models is determined based on a set of samples from at least one of the following: the current video block, a block vector guided reference block of the current video block, a motion vector guided reference block of the current video block, a template of the current video block, a non-adjacent block of the current video block, an adjacent block of the current video block, a temporal collocated block of the current video block, a temporal block adjacent to the temporal collocated block, or a temporal block non-adjacent to the temporal collocated block, or wherein samples used for determining a filter or a model are determined from one or more blocks that are coded with a target model, the filter or the model is used for determining a first candidate CCP model in the set of candidate CCP models, and the one or more blocks are coded before the current video block, or wherein one of the set of candidate CCP models is inherited from a block coded before the current video block (see section 2.2.4 on page 23, section 2.2.8 on page 26 and section 2.3 on page 28).
As per claim 15, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a CCP model comprises a filter (7-tap filter taught in section 1.9 on page 14), or wherein the coding information comprises decoding information, or 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.
As per claim 16, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see last paragraph of page 30).
As per claim 17, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see last paragraph of page 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claim(s) 9-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provisional Application No. 63/381,943 of Tseng et al. (US 2026/0149812) in view of Chang et al. (US 2025/0119536) hereinafter “Chang”.
As per claim 9, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1; however, Tseng does not explicitly disclose wherein a first indication indicating whether an LBCCP mode is used is added to one or more of the set of candidate CCP models.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses wherein a first indication indicating whether an LBCCP mode is used is added to one or more of the set of candidate CCP models (paragraphs 0092 and 0098).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Tseng, with those of Chang, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are directed to predicting chroma component using cross-component prediction models, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result, such as improving encoding efficiency by utilizing more local information. This rationale applies to all combination of Tseng and Chang used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the first indication comprises an LBCCP flag (paragraph 0083), or wherein information regarding whether the LBCCP mode is used is inherited from a block coded before the current video block.
As per claim 11, Chang discloses wherein whether to add a candidate CCP model with an LBCCP being used into the set of candidate CCP models is determined based on template-cost-based scheme (paragraphs 0085, 0099, 0101).
As per claim 12, Chang discloses wherein in the template-cost-based scheme, a template cost determined with a low-pass filter being applied and a template cost determined without a low-pass filter being applied is compared (paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0085-0087).
As per claim 13, Chang discloses wherein the set of candidate CCP models comprises a second candidate CCP model without an LBCCP being used, the second candidate CCP model is multi-model based, and a third candidate CCP model for the chroma component of the current video block is determined based on the second candidate CCP model by enabling the LBCCP (paragraphs 0079, 0082 and 0098).
As per claim 14, Chang discloses wherein the third candidate CCP model is added into the set of candidate CCP models by replacing the second candidate CCP model, or wherein the third candidate CCP model is added into the set of candidate CCP models, and the second candidate CCP model is kept in the set of candidate CCP models (paragraphs 0092-0099 and 0101-0102).
As per claims 18-19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 18-19. In addition, Chang discloses a processor and a computer-readable memory (paragraph 0224).
13. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provisional Application No. 63/381,943 of Tseng et al. (US 2026/0149812) in view of LI et al. (WO 2021/0110116 A1).
As per claim 3, Tseng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first candidate CCP model in the set of candidate CCP models is determined…based on a reference area ().
However, Tseng does not explicitly disclose CCP models are determined on-the-fly.
In the same field of endeavor, LI discloses CCP models are determined on-the-fly (page 25 lines 1-2 and 21-22).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Tseng, with those of LI, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are directed to predicting chroma component using cross-component prediction models, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20250016343-A1, EP-4708861-A1, EP-4648415-A2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights