Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0182, which describes Fig. 9, is objected too because it contains multiple errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1, 7-8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims teach the limitation “…with filtering regions aligned with LCU boundaries.” It is unclear where said limitation is taught in the specification as originally filed. The published specification teaches that adaptive offset filtering is performed in units of an LCU (see for instance paragraph 0222). However, nowhere in the specification explains that the filtering is performed with filtering regions aligned with LCU boundaries. Applicant indicated that paragraphs 0223 and 0235 have support. Paragraph 0223 teaches the adaptive offset filter, on the encoder side, which determines the type and coefficient (offset value) of adaptive offset filter in units of an LCU and sends the type and coefficient to the decoder side at the timing of the beginning of each LCU. Also, if the coefficient matches any of the coefficients that have already been transmitted and have been stored in a buffer, the adaptive offset filter on the decoder side uses a copy of the coefficient. Paragraph 0235 teaches a region is split in units of an LCU compared to that based on a quad-tree structure in the related art. Thus, paragraphs 0223 and 0235 do not have support for the limitation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2012/0294353) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Fu” in view of Chong et al. (US 2012/0051438) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Chong” in further view of Chong et al. (US 2013/0136167) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Chong_2”.
As per claim 1, Fu discloses an image processing device comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (paragraph 0058) and configured to
decode an encoded stream (fig. 2; paragraph 0030) for generating an image (reconstructed video data as taught in paragraph 0029), the encoded stream being arranged into largest coding units, LCUs (as shown in fig. 12B; paragraph 0034), wherein filtering parameters of an adaptive offset filter applicable to each LCU are individually set for each LCU with filtering regions aligned with LCU boundaries and transmitted (Fig. 12B and paragraph 0049, in LCU-based SAO, each LCU has its own SAOP and SAOP1 through SAOP15 are used by the fifteen LCUs (LCU1 through LCU15) respectively; paragraphs 0029 and 0030, the adaptive offset information and adaptive loop filter information may have to be transmitted in the bitstream so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset and adaptive loop filter…entropy decoding 222 is also responsible for entropy decoding of side information and provides the side information to respective blocks. For example, intra mode information is provided to intra-prediction 110, inter mode information is provided to motion compensation 212, adaptive offset information is provided to SAO 131); and
perform adaptive offset filtering on portions of the image (fig. 2; paragraph 0029, sample adaptive offset (SAO) 131…is applied to the reconstructed video data) that correspond to the LCUs using the filtering parameters of the adaptive offset filter set (as shown in figs. 12B and 13-15) and transmitted (paragraphs 0029 and 0030, the adaptive offset information and adaptive loop filter information may have to be transmitted in the bitstream so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset and adaptive loop filter…entropy decoding 222 is also responsible for entropy decoding of side information and provides the side information to respective blocks. For example, intra mode information is provided to intra-prediction 110, inter mode information is provided to motion compensation 212, adaptive offset information is provided to SAO 131).
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose filtering parameters of an adaptive offset filter set and transmitted at a beginning of the corresponding LCU, wherein the transmitted filtering parameters are stored in a buffer;
In the same field of endeavor, Chong discloses filtering parameters being set and transmitted at a beginning of the corresponding LCU (paragraphs [0071] and [0101], Syntax data may be defined on a per-coded-unit basis such that each coded unit includes associated syntax data. The filter information described herein, including the filter description syntax, may be part of such syntax for a coded unit, but might more likely be part of syntax for a series of video blocks, such as a frame, a slice, a GOP, LCU, or a sequence of video frames, instead of for a coded unit. The syntax data can indicate the set or sets of filters to be used with coded units of the slice or frame. Additionally, not all filter information necessarily has to be included in the header of a common series of video blocks. For example, filter description syntax might be transmitted in a frame header, while other filter information is transmitted in a header for an LCU…The filter description syntax can be included in a header of a series of video blocks, e.g., an LCU header, a frame header, a slice header, a GOP header, a sequence header, or the like. In other examples, the filter description syntax might be included in a footer or other data structure), wherein the transmitted filtering parameters are stored in a buffer (paragraph 0085, the encoded video may be transmitted to another device or archived for later transmission or retrieval, wherein the filtering parameters are part of the encoded video data as taught by Fu in paragraphs 0029-0030 and by Chong in paragraphs 0008 and 0043);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to set and transmit the offset parameters of Fu in a header portion of each LCU, as taught by Chong, in order to develop efficient coding to incorporate the SAO information (Fu; paragraph 0003) so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset filter (Fu; paragraph 0029), also to store the transmitted filtering parameters for later transmission or retrieval (Chong; paragraph 0085).
However, Fu or Chong do not explicitly disclose a buffer with a reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame;
In the same field of endeavor, Chong_2 discloses a buffer with a reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame (see fig. 1; paragraphs 0102, the sets of filters/offset and mapping information may be stored in an interleaved way (as shown in example 1 in FIGS. 1 and 2). In this case, the sets of filters/offsets may be presented and stored for each LCU, e.g., in a sequential, interleaved manner, where particular filter/offset sets are presented for respective LCU’s, and particular mapping information (e.g., copy or run length command) is presented for other LCU's. Interpreted as reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame because the storage in Fig. 1 is corresponding to each LCU rather than the storage in Fig. 2 that is frame-based);
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Fu in view of Chong, with those of Chong_2, because the references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed the references are related to using adaptive offset filter, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Fu, Chong and Chong_2 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, Fu discloses wherein the filtering parameters of the adaptive offset filter include a type of the adaptive offset filter and an offset value (paragraphs 0035 and 0045).
As per claim 3, Fu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform deblocking filtering on the image generated by the decoding, and perform adaptive offset filtering on an image on which a deblocking filter has performed deblocking filtering (fig. 2, SAO 131 performs adaptive offset filtering on reconstructed video data that is filtered by the DF 130; paragraph 0030).
As per claim 4, Fu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform adaptive offset filtering on the image generated by the decoding in units of a largest coding unit using identification date identifying i) a parameter of a previous largest coding unit on which adaptive offset filtering has been performed before a current largest coding unit as being the same as a parameter of the current largest coding unit (paragraph 0050, the SAOP of the first LCU is SAOP1, and SAOP1 is used for the subsequent two LCUs. In this case, a syntax "run=2" will be encoded to signal the number of consecutive subsequent LCUs sharing the same SAOP. Also, a merge-above flag may be used to indicate the case that the current LCU shares the SAOP of the LCU above), ii) whether or not to use a parameter of a previous largest coding unit on which adaptive offset filtering has been performed before a current largest coding unit (paragraph 0050, a merge-above flag may be used to indicate the case that the current LCU shares the SAOP of the LCU above…Since none of them shares SAOP with LCUs above, the merge-above syntax has a value 0), or iii) whether or not to use a copy of a parameter of a previous largest coding unit on which adaptive offset filtering has been performed before a current largest coding unit (paragraph 0052, If RepeatedRow flag is equal to 1, no more information needs to be coded. For each LCU in the current LCU row, the related SAOP is copied from the LCU in the above LCU row. If RepeatedRow flag is equal to 0, the SAOPs of this LCU row are coded).
As per claim 5, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claim 5.
As per claim 6, Fu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform a decoding process in units each having a hierarchical structure (in HEVC, it is inherited that each LCU can be divided into smaller CUs until leaf CUs or smallest CUs are reached. Once the splitting of CU hierarchical tree is done, each leaf CU is subject to further split into prediction units (PUs) according to prediction type and PU partition. These means that each LCU has a hierarchical structure; see also fig. 11).
As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7.
As per claim 8, Fu discloses an image processing device, comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (paragraph 0058) and configured to
individually set filtering parameters of an adaptive offset filter…for each LCU with filtering regions aligned with LCU boundaries (paragraph 0048, offset parameters are set in a header; Fig. 12B and paragraph 0049, in LCU-based SAO, each LCU has its own SAOP and SAOP1 through SAOP15 are used by the fifteen LCUs (LCU1 through LCU15) respectively),
perform adaptive offset filtering on a decoded image which has been processed by a local decoding process by using the filtering parameters of the adaptive offset filter set during an encoding process of an image (fig. 1; paragraph 0029, sample adaptive offset (SAO) 131...is applied to the reconstructed video data), and
perform an encoding process on the image on which the adaptive offset filter has performed adaptive offset filtering for generating an encoded stream (see fig. 1), the encoded stream including the filtering parameters of the adaptive offset filter applicable to each largest coding unit (paragraph 0048, where the sao_param( ) syntax can be incorporated in Adaptation Parameter Set (APS), Picture Parameter Set (PPS) or slice header. The APS is another picture-level header in addition to the PPS to accommodate parameters that are likely to change from picture to picture. Paragraph 0048 also teaches that offset parameters are set in the header of the coding unit, wherein the coding unit can be a largest coding unit as shown in fig. 12B).
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose individually set filtering parameters of an adaptive offset filter at a beginning of a largest coding unit (LCU) for each LCU, which is a unit of transmission, wherein the transmitted filtering parameters are stored in a buffer,
In the same field of endeavor, Chong discloses individually set filtering parameters of an adaptive offset filter at a beginning of a largest coding unit (LCU) for each LCU (paragraphs [0071] and [0101], Syntax data may be defined on a per-coded-unit basis such that each coded unit includes associated syntax data. The filter information described herein, including the filter description syntax, may be part of such syntax for a coded unit, but might more likely be part of syntax for a series of video blocks, such as a frame, a slice, a GOP, LCU, or a sequence of video frames, instead of for a coded unit. The syntax data can indicate the set or sets of filters to be used with coded units of the slice or frame. Additionally, not all filter information necessarily has to be included in the header of a common series of video blocks. For example, filter description syntax might be transmitted in a frame header, while other filter information is transmitted in a header for an LCU…The filter description syntax can be included in a header of a series of video blocks, e.g., an LCU header, a frame header, a slice header, a GOP header, a sequence header, or the like. In other examples, the filter description syntax might be included in a footer or other data structure), which is a unit of transmission (taught in paragraphs 0049-0052 of Fu), wherein the transmitted filtering parameters are stored in a buffer (paragraph 0085, the encoded video may be transmitted to another device or archived for later transmission or retrieval, wherein the filtering parameters are part of the encoded video data as taught by Fu in paragraphs 0029-0030 and by Chong in paragraphs 0008 and 0043);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to set and transmit the offset parameters of Fu in a header portion of each LCU, as taught by Chong, in order to develop efficient coding to incorporate the SAO information (Fu; paragraph 0003) so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset filter (Fu; paragraph 0029), also to store the transmitted filtering parameters for later transmission or retrieval (Chong; paragraph 0085).
However, Fu or Chong do not explicitly disclose a buffer with a reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame;
In the same field of endeavor, Chong_2 discloses a buffer with a reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame (see fig. 1; paragraphs 0102, the sets of filters/offset and mapping information may be stored in an interleaved way (as shown in example 1 in FIGS. 1 and 2). In this case, the sets of filters/offsets may be presented and stored for each LCU, e.g., in a sequential, interleaved manner, where particular filter/offset sets are presented for respective LCU’s, and particular mapping information (e.g., copy or run length command) is presented for other LCU's. Interpreted as reduced capacity corresponding to a current LCU being processed rather than a frame because the storage in Fig. 1 is corresponding to each LCU rather than the storage in Fig. 2 that is frame-based);
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Fu in view of Chong, with those of Chong_2, because the references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed the references are related to using adaptive offset filter, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Fu, Chong and Chong_2 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted
As per claim 9, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claim 9.
As per claims 10-11, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claims 10-11; in addition, Fu teaches transmit the set identification data and the generated encoded stream (see figs. 1-2; paragraph 0029, the adaptive offset information and adaptive loop filter information may have to be transmitted in the bitstream so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset and adaptive loop filter).
As per claims 12 and 20, arguments analogous to those applied for the parts of claim 8 that are rejected by Chong are applicable for claims 12 and 20.
As per claim 13, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 6 are applicable for claim 13.
As per claim 14, Fu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the generated encoded stream (see figs. 1-2; paragraph 0029, the adaptive offset information and adaptive loop filter information may have to be transmitted in the bitstream so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset and adaptive loop filter).
As per claim 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 8 are applicable for claim 15.
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claim 16.
As per claims 17-18, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claims 17-18; in addition, Fu teaches transmitting the set identification data and the generated encoded stream (see figs. 1-2; paragraph 0029, the adaptive offset information and adaptive loop filter information may have to be transmitted in the bitstream so that a decoder can properly recover the required information in order to apply the adaptive offset and adaptive loop filter).
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 6 are applicable for claim 19.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 2014/0334558)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482