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(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 30 September 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a period. Furthermore, to improve clarity, the abbreviation CCRM should be fully spelt out the first time with the abbreviation in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the independent claim 1 recites the broad recitation with the option of either a. at least one self-derived cross-component model or b. at least one candidate generated according to motion information of the current block, and the dependent claims 2 and 6-7 also recites one of the optional limitations as required which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2021/0112263 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16-17, Choi discloses an apparatus for performing a video encoding/decoding method, comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block of a current image of a video [Choi: FIG. 1], and where in the current block is coded in a non-intra mode [Choi: ¶ [0067] In the case of inter-prediction, the predictor 230 may derive a prediction sample for a current block based on a sample specified in a reference picture according to a motion vector]; constructing a candidate list corresponding to the current block [Choi: ¶ [0069] The predictor 230 may construct a merge candidate list using motion information of available neighboring blocks and use information indicated by a merge index on the merge candidate list as a motion vector of the current block. The merge index may be signaled by the encoding apparatus. Motion information may include a motion vector and a reference picture. In the skip mode and the merge mode, a firtly-ordered picture in the reference picture list may be used as a reference picture when motion information of a temporal neighboring block is used], wherein the candidate list comprises cross-component models, and the cross-component models comprise at least one self- derived cross-component model or at least one candidate generated according to motion information of the current block [Choi: ¶ [0069]: Motion information may include a motion vector and a reference picture]; selecting one or more selected models from the candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0072] When the merge mode is applied, for example, a merge candidate list may be generated using a motion vector of a reconstructed spatial neighboring block and/or a motion vector corresponding to a Col block which is a temporal neighboring block. A motion vector of a candidate block selected from the merge candidate list is used as the motion vector of the current block in the merge mode. The aforementioned information about prediction may include a merge index indicating a candidate block having the best motion vector selected from candidate blocks included in the merge candidate list]; and reconstructing the current block based on the one or more selected models [Choi: Abstract: generating a reconstructed block based on the predicted block for the current chroma block; and ¶ [0074] The adder 240 may add a residual sample to a prediction sample to reconstruct a current block or a current picture. The adder 240 may reconstruct the current picture by adding the residual sample to the prediction sample in units of a block].
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the motion information of the current block is a motion vector or a block vector of the current block [Choi: ¶ [0069]].
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the video decoding method further comprising: generating chroma prediction of the current block from luma information of the current block based on the one or more selected models to reconstruct the current block [Choi: Abstract].
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the cross-component models further comprise inherited cross-component models [Choi: ¶ [0091] Sixth, when the five prediction modes described above from the first to the fifth are not selected, previously selected modes may be copied and selected].
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the method further comprises a candidate list modification process [Choi: ¶ [0120] In another embodiment, after selecting all DM mode candidates, they may be sorted in the order of prediction accuracy, and then the limited number of DM modes may be selected and combined].
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the candidate list modification process comprises a reordering process, wherein the reordering process comprises a reordering rule for reordering the cross-component models in the candidate list [Choi: ¶ [0120]].
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the reordering rule is based on model error calculated by computing difference between prediction generated by applying each of the cross- component models to neighboring templates of the current block, and reconstruction of the neighboring template [Choi: ¶ [0120] prediction accuracy is determined using an error value between the reconstructed luminance image and the predicted luminance image. For this, a sum squared error (SSE), a sum of absolute difference (SAD), or a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) between the reconstructed luminance image and the predicted luminance image may be used].
Regarding Claim 11, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses wherein the difference is calculated using Sum of Absolute Difference (SAD) [Choi: ¶ [0120]].
Regarding Claim 12, Choi discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses the cross-component model with the smallest model error are selected to reconstruct the current block [Choi: ¶ [0120]].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2025/0016343 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 4, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein the inherited cross-component models comprise at least one of spatial model, temporal model, history-based model, pairwise average model and default model.
However, Chen discloses wherein the inherited cross-component models comprise at least one of spatial model, temporal model, history-based model, pairwise average model and default model [Chen: ¶ [0087] In some implementations, the block unit may inherit the prediction model of the reference block corresponding to the selected CCP merge candidate, which may result in the prediction model of the block unit being identical to the prediction model of the reference block. Thus, with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, the decoder module 124 may predict the block unit using the prediction model of the block unit to generate the first prediction block; ¶ [0073]; and ¶ [0017]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the models of Chen in order to reduce computational load.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hannuksela (US 2021/0321114 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one self-derived cross- component model is CCRM.
However, Hannuksela discloses wherein the at least one self-derived cross- component model is CCRM [Hannuksela: ¶ [0255] Turning coding tools on or off. Such coding tools may comprise but are not limited to filtering (e.g. deblocking, sample adaptive offset, and/or adaptive loop filtering), intra prediction modes, inter prediction modes (e.g. weighted prediction), motion vector prediction modes (e.g. temporal motion vector prediction), residual coding modes (e.g. cross-component prediction)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the mode of Hannuksela in order to provide improved operational utility.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0219283 A1)(hereinafter referred to as Chen2.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 1, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein the self-derived cross-component model is derived through a weight derivation process, wherein the weight derivation process comprises calculating a relationship weight between a target chroma prediction and at least one of one or more source terms from luma component, one or more source terms from chroma components, and one or more bias terms.
However, Chen2 discloses wherein the self-derived cross-component model is derived through a weight derivation process, wherein the weight derivation process comprises calculating a relationship weight between a target chroma prediction and at least one of one or more source terms from luma component, one or more source terms from chroma components, and one or more bias terms [Chen2: Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the linear model includes a set of parameters including a weighting factor and an offset and is defined by a color component type of the source color component, wherein one color component type is luma and one color component type is chroma, wherein the source color component is one of a luma color component type and a chroma color component type and wherein the target color component is a chroma color component type].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the determination of Chen2 in order to provide reduce computational load.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Francois et al. (US 2023/0300351 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 8, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein the candidate list modification process comprises a pruning process, wherein the pruning process comprises determining whether to include a new cross-component model into the candidate list by calculating a similarity between the new cross-component model and the cross-component models in the candidate list or by calculating a similarity between the new cross-component model and another self-derived model.
However, Francois discloses wherein the candidate list modification process comprises a pruning process, wherein the pruning process comprises determining whether to include a new cross-component model into the candidate list by calculating a similarity between the new cross-component model and the cross-component models in the candidate list or by calculating a similarity between the new cross-component model and another self-derived model [Francois: ¶ [0208] In one variant, new CCLM parameters are added to the history list only if they are different from the CCLM parameters already present in the history list. [0209] In one variant, the index of the CCLM parameters from the CCLM parameters history list is coded for the chroma block if it is coded using the fallback CCLM mode. [0210] In one variant, the index of the CCLM parameters from the history list is inferred based on a similarity check of the luma and/or chroma samples inside or surrounding the chroma block with the luma and/or chroma samples having been used to compute the CCLM parameters of the list].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi with the determination of Francois in order to provide more efficient processing.
Regarding Claim 14, Choi in view of Francois disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 13, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Francois discloses wherein the pruning process calculates the similarity based on the difference between the model parameters of two models [Francois: ¶ [0210]].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Francios as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tsilfidis et al. (US 2015/0317983 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Choi in view of Francios disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 14, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi in view of Francios may not explicitly disclose if the similarity is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the new cross-component model is not included in the candidate list.
However, Tsilfidis discloses if the similarity is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the new cross-component model is not included in the candidate list [Tsilfidis: ¶ [0047]: then, any cross-component similarity measure between Z.sub.1(k), . . . , Z.sub.M(k) and z.sub.j,m(k) can be derived 919, 920, . . . , 921, . . . , 922. For producing the output signals, any technique can be used 923. For example a threshold of similarity T can be defined and: [0048] When the calculated similarity is higher than T, the components are assumed to correspond to the sound of the related source. [0049] When the calculated similarity measure is lower than T, the components are assumed to correspond to the sound of any other source].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the process of Choi in view of Francios with the determination of Tsilfidis in order to provide reduced computational load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights