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 § 112
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.
Claims 5-7 are ejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " MMLM_TL ", claims 6-7 recite the limitation “LDL”. There is insufficient definition or antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and should be enclosed in parentheese.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220248025 A1 Deng; Zhipin et al. (hereafter Deng).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses A method for video processing (Fig.1), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Fig.2, encoder 100 is a conversion), a prediction for a chroma component of the current video block ([105], [107], CB is a partition of a code tree unit CTU) by fusing a first candidate prediction for the chroma component determined with a non-linear model (non-LM) mode and at least one candidate prediction for the chroma component determined with at least one cross-component prediction (CCP) mode ([222], each prediction mode is a candidate to be selected); and performing the conversion based on the prediction ([106]-[108], encoder is the conversion).
Regarding claim 9, Deng discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of candidate predictions for the chroma component are allowed or used to be fused with the first candidate prediction ([132]).
Regarding claim 15, Deng discloses The method of claim 1, wherein 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 ([141], [231]).
Regarding claim 16, Deng discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 17, Deng discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 18-20, see the rejection for claim 1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, and further in view of WO 2020041306 A1 MA XIANG et al. (hereafter Ma)
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches The method of claim 1, wherein one of the at least one CCP mode is different from a multi-model linear model mode using both left and top templates to determine linear model coefficients ([139], [240]).
Therefore 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 method for video processing disclosed by Deng to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Ma, in order to provide intra prediction apparatuses and methods for encoding and decoding an image, as identified by Ma.
Claim(s) 3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, and further in view of US 20240015279 A1 ZHAO; Xin et al. (hereafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one CCP mode comprises a convolutional cross- component model (CCCM) based multi-model linear model (MMLM) mode, or wherein the at least one CCP mode comprises a gradient linear model (GLM) based multi-model linear model (MMLM) mode ([201]).
Therefore 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 method for video processing disclosed by Deng to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Zhao, in order to improve the inter-picture prediction in coding efficiency, as identified by Zhao.
Regarding claim 6, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first candidate prediction and the at least one candidate prediction are fused based on sample-based weights, or wherein the weights for fusing the first candidate prediction and the at least one candidate prediction are determined based on a gaussian elimination solver or an LDL decomposition solver ([34], [212], [233]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the gaussian elimination solver or the LDL decomposition solver is dependent on more than one line of neighboring samples of the current video block, or wherein the number of lines of reference samples used for the gaussian elimination solver or the LDL decomposition solver is determined based on template cost ([167], [212], [233]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one candidate prediction comprises a second candidate prediction for the chroma component determined with an MMLM mode, and the second candidate prediction is filtered before being fused with the first candidate prediction, or wherein the at least one candidate prediction comprises a second candidate prediction for the chroma component determined with an MMLM mode, and whether to filter the second candidate prediction is determined based on template cost or indicated in the bitstream ([155], [200]-[201]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng, and further in view of US 20260107001 A1 Naser; Karam et al. (hereafter Naser).
Regarding claim 4, Naser teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one CCP mode comprises an MMLM mode, and information regarding how to classify training samples for a plurality of models of the MMLM mode is determined based on template cost ([06], [65]).
Therefore 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 method for video processing disclosed by Deng to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Naser, in order to provide the techniques for signaling a type of template to be used for template-based coding tools, as identified by Naser.
Regarding claim 5, Deng discloses The method of claim 4, wherein 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 to determine a threshold for classifying the training samples, or wherein the MMLM mode comprises: a regular MMLM_TL mode, a regular CCCM based MMLM_TL mode, a GL-CCCM based MMLM_TL mode, a CCCM without downsampling based MMLM_TL mode, a CCCM-MDF based MMLM_TL TL mode, or a GLM based MMLM_TL mode ([123]-[129]).
Regarding claim 10, Naser teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of candidate predictions comprise the at least one candidate prediction for the chroma component, or wherein the number of the plurality of candidate predictions is 2, 3, or 4, or wherein the prediction for the chroma component is determined based on a weighted sum of the plurality of candidate predictions and the first candidate prediction, or wherein a candidate prediction is selected from the plurality of candidate predictions and fused with the first candidate prediction, or wherein a template cost is determined for each of the plurality of candidate predictions or each of models for determining the plurality of candidate predictions ([06], [65]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: EP 4346202 A1, US 20230209042 A1, WO 2023154359 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) EST.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights