DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 8 DECEMBER 2025.
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 Statements (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 and 11/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17-20, and 22 have been amended. No claims have been canceled or added. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-23 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 DECEMBER 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0176501 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0408085 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”), Applicant alleges the following:
“Lim, paragraph 1024 and FIG. 45 (emphasis added). As shown above, Lim, discloses that the sixth syntax element is included in the picture header depending on a second syntax element (i.e., pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled) signaled in the picture header. However, Lim does not element signaled at the SPS level. As such, Lim fails to disclose a sixth element that is signaled in the picture header depending on the second syntax element signaled at the SPS level, as claimed. As such, the combination of Chen and Lim fails to disclose all of the limitations set forth in independent claims 1, 6, 17-20, and consequently does not render obvious claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-23.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Lim includes the sixth syntax element (i.e., pic_cross_component_cb_filters_signalled_minus1) dependent on pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag, which is dependent on the second syntax element in Chen’s disclosure. Chen’s disclosure describes the first syntax element (i.e., sps_alf_enabled_flag) used in controlling the second syntax element (i.e., sps_cross_component_alf_flag), and then controlling CC-ALF parameters with the second syntax element in the picture header by restricting pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_present_flag with the second syntax element. See Chen, Provisional, pp. 9 and 10. Therefore, because all CC-ALF syntax elements in Chen are restricted under the pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_present_flag, the sixth syntax element of Lim would be implemented therein, and as such, dependent on the second syntax element signaled at the SPS level. For these reasons, the rejection of Chen and Lim is maintained.
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) 1, 2, 4-7, 9-14, and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0176501 A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0408085 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method ([0002], “video data processing methods”) comprising:
applying a cross component adaptive loop filter (CC-ALF) to refine a chroma component ([0009], “apply a CCALF processing on the current block based on CCALF coefficients to refine one or more chroma components Cb and Cr of the current block according to a luma component of the current block”); and
generating a bitstream comprising a plurality of CC-ALF related syntax elements indicating CC-ALF related information ([0049], “Syntax elements are provided to Entropy Encoder 530 for incorporating into the video bitstream.” Slice header, picture header, SPS header, and ALF APS syntax signaled in the video bitstream are described in the various tables throughout the disclosure, such as paragraphs [0033-0040]),
wherein the CC-ALF related syntax elements are signaled at any one or more of a sequence parameter set (SPS) level, a picture header, or a slice header ([0013], “the video data processing method further comprises signaling or parsing one or more Picture Header (PH) CCALF syntax elements or Slice Header (SH) CCALF syntax elements as both ALF and CCALF signaling are present either in a PH or SH. CCALF signaling is conditioned on a picture level ALF enabling flag or a slice level ALF enabling flag according to one embodiment. In another embodiment, CCALF signaling is conditioned on both a Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) ALF enabling flag and a picture level ALF enabling flag.” Paragraphs [0033-0040] describe syntax for each of a SPS level, picture header, and slice header), and wherein the CC-ALF related syntax elements comprise:
a first syntax element that is signaled at the SPS level and that indicates whether an ALF is enabled at a sequence level ([0038-0039] depict SPS syntax tables with parameter the parameter sps_alf_enabled_flag. [0030], “ALF is enabled at the Sequence Parameter Set (SPS) level by a SPS ALF enabling flag sps_alf_enabled_flag”); and
a second syntax element that is signaled at the SPS level and that indicates whether the CC-ALF is enabled at the sequence level ([0040], “The syntax element sps_ccalf_enabled_flag signaled in the SPS specifies whether the cross-component adaptive loop filter is enabled or disabled;” [0038], “The SPS level control for the CCALF is realized by signaling or parsing a SPS level CCALF enabling flag […] the syntax element sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag specifies whether the cross-component adaptive loop filter is enabled or disabled for the current sequence.” Note, the SPS RBSP table in [0038] has sps_cross_cromponent_alf_enabled_flag as dependent on sps_alf_enabled_flag); and
([0038] describes CC-ALF syntax elements restricted by pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag in the picture header RBSP and required for enabling at the slice level in the slice header table, also it is dependent on sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag. [0036] describes picture header RBSP with pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_present_flag and restricts CC-ALF syntax elements, such as pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag).
Chen fails to expressly disclose a sixth syntax element that is signaled in the picture header and that indicates a number of cross-component chroma blue-difference (Cb) filters for all slices associated with the picture header.
However, Lim teaches a sixth syntax element that is signaled in the picture header and that indicates a number of cross-component chroma blue-difference (Cb) filters for all slices associated with the picture header (FIG. 45 depicts the picture header RBSP with pic_cross_component_cb_filters_signalled_minus1. [1024], “when pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag has a second value, all ALF APSs referred to by pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id in all slices, all tiles or all subpictures in a current picture may be the same. Meanwhile, a value of pic_cross_component_cb_filters_signalled_minus1+1 may indicate the number of cross-component Cb filters”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a picture header syntax indicating the number of filters for CCALF Cb, as taught by Lim (FIG. 45), in Chen’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Chen’s disclosure, by incorporating Lim’s disclosure, to improve image encoding and decoding efficiency (Lim: [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the second syntax element indicates that the CC-ALF is enabled, the CC-ALF related syntax elements further comprise a third syntax element that is signaled in the picture header and that indicates whether the CC-ALF is enabled for a current picture comprising a plurality of slices ([0003], “A coded picture is represented by one or a collection of slices;” [0038] describes the pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag in the picture header RBSP and required for enabling at the slice level in the slice header table, also it is dependent on sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag. Note, said parameter is also present in paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036], and their respective tables for controlling the picture header, furthermore, the second syntax header being at the SPS level means it controls CC-ALF for all pictures).
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the second syntax element indicates that the CC-ALF is enabled (SPS RBSP tables of [0038] and [0039] depict the syntax sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag and sps_ccalf_enabled_flag, respectively, for enabling CC-ALF), the CC-ALF related syntax elements further comprise a third syntax element that is signaled in the picture header and indicates whether a CC-ALF for a chroma blue-difference (Cb) color component is enabled for a current picture of a video sequence associated with the bitstream (The PH RBSP of [0038] presents a modification for the existing syntax element pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_present_flag to be controlled by sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag. The syntax element pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_present_flag is used for controlling whether to signal the syntax pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag, as per the PH RBSP of [0037]. Furthermore, the PH RBSP of [0040] controls the signaling of pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag directly with the use of the sps_ccalf_enabled_flag. Note: The PH and SH of [0036] and the SPS and PH of [0037] are identically present in bullets 6 and 8 of Chen’s provisional application 62/943.836. The PH of [0040] is identical to the PH of said provisional in bullet 2, with the exception of the conditional statement of “sps_ccalf_enabeld_flag.” However, bullet 8 of said provisional describes modifying the SPS as depicted in [0037] for conditioning CCALF parameters with instead of sps_alf_enabled_flag. Therefore, [0040] is a combination of bullets 2 and 8 whereas [0037] is a combination of the two tables in bullet 8. Said provisional in bullet 8 states, “[i]n one embodiment, there is an SPS level control for CCALF, same way as for ALF, which is then used for controlling CCALF signaling instead of sps_alf_enabled_flag.” That is to say, the provisional supports utilizing the new SPS CCALF parameter for controlling CCALF signaling at respective levels (SPS, PH, and SH). When the ALF and CCALF are enabled, they are applied, see [0009]),
wherein the CC-ALF is enabled for the current picture when the third syntax element has a first value of 1, and wherein the CC-ALF is disabled for the current picture when the third syntax element has a second value of 0 (Each of paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0036], [0038], and [0040] depict a picture header syntax with the syntax element pic_cross_compoment_alf_cb_enabled_flag. Said parameter is restricted based on the CCALF enabling flag sps_ccalf_enabled_flag in paragraph [0040] and then for paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036] the modification of paragraph [0038] includes restricting said parameter based on pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag being conditioned on sps_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_flag).
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the second syntax element indicates that the CC-ALF is enabled, the CC-ALF related syntax elements further comprise a third syntax element that is signaled in the picture header and that specifies whether a second CC-ALF for a chroma red-difference Cr color component is enabled for a current picture of a video sequence with the bitstream (Each of paragraphs [0033], [0035], [0036], [0038], and [0040] depict a picture header syntax with the syntax element pic_cross_compoment_alf_cr_enabled_flag. Said parameter is restricted based on the CCALF enabling flag sps_ccalf_enabled_flag in paragraph [0040] and then for paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036] the modification of paragraph [0038] includes restricting said parameter based on pic_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag being conditioned on sps_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_flag. Note, the ALF Cr syntax controls the pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id syntax for choosing the CCALF from an APS).
Regarding claim 6, Chen and Lim disclose the same limitations of claim 1; however, written from the perspective of the decoder, which is the inverse to the encoder. Paragraph [0050] of Chen describes the decoder corresponds to the encoder in a similar process by parsing the bitstream and reconstructing the encoded image. See FIGS. 5 and 6, video bitstream is output from entropy encoder 530 with ALF-related syntax parsed at entropy decoder 610. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same limitations of claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same limitations of claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the third syntax element is enabled for the current picture, the CC-ALF related syntax elements further comprise a fourth syntax element indicating a parameter set that is associated with Cb color components of all slices in the current picture, and wherein the method further comprises obtaining, from the picture header, the fourth syntax element ([0038], picture_header_rbsp() syntax discloses, “if (sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag) […] then pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag.” Note, the modification of the picture headers of paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036]’s use of pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag being additionally dependent on sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag leads to the picture headers depending thereon to the syntax elements pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag, pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id, pic_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag, and pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id. [0003], “A coded picture is represented by one or a collection of slices:” e.g., parameters of the picture indicate parameters usable by all slices therein, note the slice header tables in paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036]. Also see the picture header RBSP in [0040] with the plurality of syntax elements required for CCALF of the Cb component, particularly pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id).
Regarding claim 11, Chen and Lim disclose the same limitations of claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 11, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein the CC-ALF is enabled for the current picture when the third syntax element has a first value of 1, and wherein the CC-ALF is disabled for the current picture when the third syntax element has a second value of 0 ([0038] describes the pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag in the picture header RBSP and required for enabling at the slice level in the slice header table, also it is dependent on sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag. Note, said parameter is also present in paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036], and their respective tables for controlling the picture header, furthermore, the second syntax header being at the SPS level means it controls CC-ALF for all pictures. Note, the plurality of syntax elements for enabling CCALF in a chroma channel are in each of [0033], [0035], [0036], [0038], and [0040], such as pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id syntax being present on pic_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag being true (i.e., a value of “1”)).
Regarding claim 13, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 11, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the fifth syntax element indicates that the CC-ALF is enabled for the current picture, the CC-ALF related syntax elements further comprise a fourth syntax element indicating a parameter set that is associated with Cr color components of all slices in the current picture, and wherein the method further comprises obtaining, from the picture header, the fourth syntax element ([0038], picture_header_rbsp() syntax discloses, “if (sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag) […] then pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag.” Note, the modification of the picture headers of paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036]’s use of pic_cross_compoment_alf_enabled_present_flag being additionally dependent on sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag leads to the picture headers depending thereon to the syntax elements pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag, pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id, pic_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag, and pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id. [0003], “A coded picture is represented by one or a collection of slices:” e.g., parameters of the picture indicate parameters usable by all slices therein, note the slice header tables in paragraphs [0033], [0035], and [0036]. Also see the picture header RBSP in [0040] with the plurality of syntax elements required for CCALF of the Cr component, particularly pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id).
Regarding claim 14, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses wherein when the third syntax element indicates that the CC-ALF is enabled for the current picture, the method further comprises obtaining a fourth syntax element, fifth syntax element, a seventh syntax element, an eighth syntax element, ([0033], [0035], and [0036] describe when the third syntax element is enabled, the following syntax elements are present pic_cross_component_alf_cb_enabled_flag, pic_cross_component_alf_cr_enabled_flag, pic_cross_component_alf_cb_aps_id, and pic_cross_component_alf_cr_aps_id, and others).
Chen fails to expressly disclose a ninth syntax element.
However, Misra teaches a ninth syntax element (FIG. 45 depicts syntax pic_cross_compnent_cr_filters_signalled_minus1). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Chen and Lim disclose every limitation of claim 6, as outlined above. Additionally, Chen discloses further comprising: obtaining the second syntax element when the first syntax element has a first value ([0038], “An embodiment of signaling a separate SPS level CCALF enabling flag depending on a SPS level ALF enabling flag sps_alf_enabled_flag is demonstrated in the following, where the syntax element sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag specifies whether the cross-component adaptive loop filter is enabled or disabled for the current sequence;” seq_parameter_set_rbsp() syntax of [0038] discloses, “if (sps_alf_enabled_flag) [then] sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag.” [0039] also describes seq_parameter_set_rbsp() syntax with “if (sps_alf_enabled_flag) [then] sps_ccalf_enabled_flag.” Note, the tables associated with picture header and slice header syntax each rely on a combination of these flags being enabled for processing); and
conditionally obtaining, based on a second value of the first syntax element, the second syntax element ([0038], “An embodiment of signaling a separate SPS level CCALF enabling flag depending on a SPS level ALF enabling flag sps_alf_enabled_flag is demonstrated in the following, where the syntax element sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag specifies whether the cross-component adaptive loop filter is enabled or disabled for the current sequence;” seq_parameter_set_rbsp() syntax of [0038] discloses, “if (sps_alf_enabled_flag) [then] sps_cross_component_alf_enabled_flag.” [0039] also describes seq_parameter_set_rbsp() syntax with “if (sps_alf_enabled_flag) [then] sps_ccalf_enabled_flag.” Note, the tables associated with picture header and slice header syntax each rely on a combination of these flags being enabled for processing).
Regarding 17, the limitations are the same as claim 1; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17. Chen fails to expressly disclose sufficient structure as the provisional is based on a technical document with high-level syntax.
However, Lim teaches a video data memory configured to store instructions; and a video encoder coupled to the video data memory ([1350], “implemented in a form of program instructions, which are executable by various computer components, and recorded in a computer-readable recording medium. The computer-readable recording medium may include stand-alone or a combination of program instructions.” Note, an embodiment of the computer component being a video encoder, as per FIG. 1). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as claim 17; however, written in decoder form instead of encoder form, which utilize the same structural properties as per Chien ¶ [0043]. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 17 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as claim 18. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 18 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as claim 17. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 17 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are the same as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are the same as claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations are the same as claim 12. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 12 applies equally as well to claim 23.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481