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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Currently claims 1-19, and 24 are pending. Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 4, 7-13, 16-19 and 24 and canceled claims 20-23 and 25-30.
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.
Claims 1-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al., US 20250097434 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kuo”) in further view of Li et al., US 20230403397 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Kuo discloses a method comprising:
obtaining video data, including luma and chroma samples (Kuo: The “[i]nput video” includes chroma and luma samples. Fig. 1); and coding a chroma sample (Kuo: “a cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction mode is used in the VVC, for which the chroma samples are predicted based on the reconstructed luma samples.” ¶ [0056]), the coding comprises:
deriving a phase-based model (Kuo: “a cross-component linear model (CCLM)” ¶ [0056])), and wherein a parameter of the model, associated with the gradient of the corresponding luma sample, is a product of a respective chroma phase and a parameter of the model associated with the corresponding luma sample, and predicting the chroma sample using the phase-based model. (Kuo: “Chroma samples are predicted based on the reconstructed luma samples of the same CU by using a linear model as follows:
p
r
e
d
C
i
,
j
=
α
·
r
e
c
L
'
i
,
j
+
β
where pred_C (i, j) represents the predicted chroma samples in a CU, and rec_L'( i, j) represents the down-sampled reconstructed luma samples of the same CU which are obtained by performing down-sampling on the reconstructed luma samples rec_L (i,j). The above α and β are linear model parameters which are derived from at most four neighboring chroma samples and their corresponding down-sampled luma samples, which may be referred to as neighboring luma-chroma sample pairs.” ¶¶ [0056] – [0065]. “[A] horizontal gradient and a vertical gradient are calculated for each collocated reconstructed luma sample.” ¶ [0132]. “The sampling ratio of chroma components is half of that of luma component and has 0.5 pixel phase difference in vertical direction.” ¶ [0086]).
Kuo does not explicitly disclose wherein the phase-based model is a function of a corresponding luma sample and of a gradient of the corresponding luma sample.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses the phase-based model is a function of a corresponding luma sample and of a gradient of the corresponding luma sample (Li: predC ( i, j) =α·rec L'( i, j) + β. Eq 1. ¶ [0082]. “The linear model parameters α and β are derived based on reconstructed adjacent chroma samples and the corresponding gradients G of the collocated reconstructed luma samples and the down-sampled reconstructed luma samples…Then chroma samples of a block can be predicted from the gradients of the collocated reconstructed luma samples and the values of the down-sampled reconstructed luma samples by a linear model as: predC (i, j)=α
·
(GL(i, j)+rec′L (i, j))+β (Eq. 39)” ¶ [0130]]).
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 Kuo with the phase-based model is a function of a corresponding luma sample and of a gradient of the corresponding luma sample, as taught by Li, in order to improve coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the gradient represents a vertical gradient value and a horizontal gradient value of the corresponding luma sample (Kuo: “[A] horizontal gradient and a vertical gradient are calculated for each collocated reconstructed luma sample.” ¶ [0132]. Li: “horizontal gradient pattern and the vertical gradient pattern as shown in Equation 14 and Equation 15.” ¶ [0179]).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the respective chroma phase represents a spatial phase between a location of the chroma sample and a location of the corresponding luma sample (Kuo: “The sampling ratio of chroma components is half of that of luma component and has 0.5 pixel phase difference in vertical direction. Reconstructed luma needs down-sampling in vertical direction and subsample in horizontal direction to match size of chroma signal.” ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the phase-based model includes only four parameters including the parameter associated with the corresponding luma sample and parameters associated with the gradient of the corresponding luma sample. (Kuo: CCLM Equation 1 ¶ [0056]. “A gradient linear model (GLM), wherein the GLM is used to obtain one or more filtered values based on intensity differences among luma samples; and decoding the video data based on the information related to the GLM.” Abstract, ¶ [0130], [0132]).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 4, wherein the phase-based model further includes a parameter associated with a bias term (Kuo: “bias parameter b” ¶ [0121]).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the phase-based model further includes a parameter associated with a non-linear function of the corresponding luma sample (Kuo: “The nonlinear term P is represented as power of two of the center luma sample C and scaled to the sample value range of the content.” ¶ [0150] and “FIR may be applied on the reconstructed luma samples, and then a non-linear power of 1/2 may be applied.” ¶ [0260]).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to any one of claim 1, wherein the deriving of the phase-based model comprises: computing parameters of the phase-based model in multiple stages, including: in a first stage, determining a first subset of the parameters including the parameter of the model associated with the corresponding luma sample, and in a second stage, determining, based on the parameters in the first subset, a second subset of the parameters including the parameter of the model associated with the gradient of the corresponding luma sample. (Kuo: “derive the chroma intra prediction mode of the current block based on the collocated reconstructed luma samples. Specifically, a horizontal gradient and a vertical gradient are calculated for each collocated reconstructed luma sample of the current chroma block to build a HoG, as shown in FIG. 8C. Then the intra prediction mode with the largest histogram amplitude values is used for performing chroma intra prediction of the current chroma block.” ¶ [0132]. Li: (Eq. 39) ¶ [0130]]).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to claim 7, further comprising: constraining the computation of the phase-based model parameters by limiting the respective chroma phase to a predetermined range for the chroma phase (Kuo: Clipping (i.e., limiting to -4, 4) ¶¶ [0096] - [0097]).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), the combination of Kuo and Li disclose the method according to any one of claim 1, wherein the deriving of the phase-based model comprises: computing parameters of the phase-based model, including constraining the computation of the parameters by limiting the respective chroma phase to a predetermined range for the chroma phase (Kuo: Clipping (i.e., limiting to -4, 4) ¶¶ [0096] - [0097]).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15 (Original), claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 24 (Currently Amended), claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 24. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
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
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights