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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 4- 5, 7-14, 17- 18, and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, and 15 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 21 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.
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 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) further in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) further in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing):
Regarding Claim 1, Du teaches a method of video processing in an encoder ([0005] teaches encoder process for video processing), comprising:
determining to use cross-component sample offset (CCSO) for coding filtering one or more blocks in a current picture (“flags may be provided to signal when CCSO is enabled or disabled. For example, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_enable signal for each color component, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the color component. In another aspect, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_blk_ctr signal for each 128x128 super block, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the super block.” [0090]; [0033]);
, the filter parameters comprising at least one of a filter shape, a number of filter taps, a quantization step, a filtering unit size, and a number of bands (“The CCSO 400 may have a predetermined number F of taps” [0080]; “the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes” [0081]; “the number of bands for each color component may be signaled” [0086]; “thr is a quantization step “[0067]; [0059]; [0081]; [0086])
the first rate distortion cost being of the CCSO that is a loop filter having the one or more first combination of values for the filter parameters (“the CCSO filter 274 may be part of a multi-filter filtering system 270 which may include other filters 272, 276.” [0033]; “The CCSO filter 274 proposed herein may work cooperatively with other filtering units within the in loop filter 270” [0034]; [0072]);
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Leontaris teaches starting a search in a set of combinations of values for filter parameters of the CCSO, each combination in the set of combinations comprising values respectively for the filter parameters (“minimize over (i.e. select one of) JBO,chroma, Jno — SAO,chroma, and JEO,chroma and determine optimal chroma parameters by selecting the option with the minimum cost” [0164]);
selecting values of the filter parameters for performing the CCSO for filtering the one or more blocks in the current picture based on a result from the search, the result from the search excluding the one or more second combination (“Video encoder 20 may decide LCU parameters by minimizing over JSAO, Jmerge — left, and Jmerge — up, i.e. selecting the parameters associated with the least cost.” [0122]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to improve the video coding quality (Leontaris [0104]).
Leontaris does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Hsaing teaches determining that a first rate distortion cost associated with one or more first combination in the set of combinations satisfies a condition (“ At step 802, the inter rate-distortion cost can be compared to a first threshold, T1” [0043]; “if the approximated cost for a given prediction mode is greater than the assigned threshold, we can be confident that the actual R-D cost for this mode is unlikely to the lowest cost among all candidate modes”[0039]).
terminating the search of one or more second combinations in the set of combinations comprising values for the filter parameters of the CCSO when the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition (“the rate-distortion cost approximation for the first intra mode is skipped and the related cost is just set to infinity at step 804 such that the first intra mode will not be chosen by the mode decision logic in the future “[0043]; “The further refinement of rate-distortion estimation for this mode is thus skipped to save the computational resource” [0039]), wherein a rate distortion cost associated with each of the one or more second combinations is not calculated when the search is terminated,(“ Otherwise, the mode I4×4 is not selected by setting JI4×4* to Infinity.” [0043]; “once the rate-distortion cost accumulated from individual 4×4 block rate-distortion costs reaches Jmin, the algorithm blocks JI4×4* and JI4×4 (803 and 807 of FIG. 7) can skip the calculations of rate-distortion costs for all the remaining unprocessed 4×4 blocks in the current macro-block.”[0055]), the set of combinations including the one or more first combinations that have been searched and the one or more second combinations that are not searched (“The optimal macro-block mode decision among all candidate modes typically proceeds in an exhaustive approach” [0009]; “Accordingly, embodiments of the invention are directed to a method that reduces the complexity associated with the search for the lowest cost function” [0010]; [0057]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to further add the early termination as disclosed by Hsaing to improve compression efficiency (Hsaing [0031]).
Regarding Claim 14. Du teaches an apparatus for video encoding, comprising processing circuitry ([0109] components may be provided as hybrid systems that distribute functionality across dedicated hardware components and programmed general-purpose processors, as desired.), configured to:
determine to use cross-component sample offset (CCSO) for filtering one or more blocks in a current picture (“flags may be provided to signal when CCSO is enabled or disabled. For example, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_enable signal for each color component, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the color component. In another aspect, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_blk_ctr signal for each 128x128 super block, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the super block.” [0090]; [0033]);
the filter parameters comprising at least one of a filter shape, a number of filter taps, a quantization step, a filtering unit size, and a number of bands (“The CCSO 400 may have a predetermined number F of taps” [0080]; “the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes” [0081]; “the number of bands for each color component may be signaled” [0086]; “thr is a quantization step “[0067]; [0059]; [0081]; [0086]) ;
the first rate distortion cost being of the CCSO that is a loop filter having the one or more first combination of values for the filter parameters (“the CCSO filter 274 may be part of a multi-filter filtering system 270 which may include other filters 272, 276.” [0033]; “The CCSO filter 274 proposed herein may work cooperatively with other filtering units within the in loop filter 270” [0034]; [0072]);
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Leontaris teaches start a search in a set of combinations of values for filter parameters of the CCSO, each combination in the set of combinations comprising values respectively for the filter parameters (“minimize over (i.e. select one of) JBO,chroma, Jno — SAO,chroma, and JEO,chroma and determine optimal chroma parameters by selecting the option with the minimum cost” [0164]).
select values of the filter parameters for performing the CCSO for filtering the one or more blocks in the current picture based on a result from the search, the result from the search excluding the one or more second combination (“Video encoder 20 may decide LCU parameters by minimizing over JSAO, Jmerge — left, and Jmerge — up, i.e. selecting the parameters associated with the least cost.” [0122]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to improve the video coding quality (Leontaris [0104]).
Leontaris does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Hsaing teaches determine that a first rate distortion cost associated with one or more first combination in the set of combinations satisfies a condition (“ At step 802, the inter rate-distortion cost can be compared to a first threshold, T1” [0043]; “if the approximated cost for a given prediction mode is greater than the assigned threshold, we can be confident that the actual R-D cost for this mode is unlikely to the lowest cost among all candidate modes”[0039]).
terminate the search of one or more second combinations in the set of combinations comprising values for the filter parameters of the CCSO when the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition (“the rate-distortion cost approximation for the first intra mode is skipped and the related cost is just set to infinity at step 804 such that the first intra mode will not be chosen by the mode decision logic in the future “[0043]; “The further refinement of rate-distortion estimation for this mode is thus skipped to save the computational resource” [0039]), wherein a rate distortion cost associated with each of the one or more second combinations is not calculated when the search is terminated,(“ Otherwise, the mode I4×4 is not selected by setting JI4×4* to Infinity.” [0043]; “once the rate-distortion cost accumulated from individual 4×4 block rate-distortion costs reaches Jmin, the algorithm blocks JI4×4* and JI4×4 (803 and 807 of FIG. 7) can skip the calculations of rate-distortion costs for all the remaining unprocessed 4×4 blocks in the current macro-block.”[0055]), the set of combinations including the one or more first combinations that have been searched and the one or more second combinations that are not searched (“The optimal macro-block mode decision among all candidate modes typically proceeds in an exhaustive approach” [0009]; “Accordingly, embodiments of the invention are directed to a method that reduces the complexity associated with the search for the lowest cost function” [0010]; [0057]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to further add the early termination as disclosed by Hsaing to improve compression efficiency (Hsaing [0031]).
Regarding Claim 21, Du teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method of encoding a bitstream (“Video decoders and/or controllers can be embodied in integrated circuits, such as application specific integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, and/or digital signal processors. Alternatively, they can be embodied in computer programs that execute on camera devices, personal computers, notebook computers, tablet computers, smartphones, or computer servers” [0109]) comprising:
determining to use cross-component sample offset (CCSO) for coding filtering one or more blocks in a current picture (“flags may be provided to signal when CCSO is enabled or disabled. For example, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_enable signal for each color component, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the color component. In another aspect, it may be convenient to provide a 1-bit ccso_blk_ctr signal for each 128x128 super block, indicating whether CCSO filtering is enabled for the super block.” [0090]; [0033]);
, the filter parameters comprising at least one of a filter shape, a number of filter taps, a quantization step, a filtering unit size, and a number of bands (“The CCSO 400 may have a predetermined number F of taps” [0080]; “the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes” [0081]; “the number of bands for each color component may be signaled” [0086]; “thr is a quantization step “[0067]; [0059]; [0081]; [0086]);
the first rate distortion cost being of the CCSO that is a loop filter having the one or more first combination of values for the filter parameters (“the CCSO filter 274 may be part of a multi-filter filtering system 270 which may include other filters 272, 276.” [0033]; “The CCSO filter 274 proposed herein may work cooperatively with other filtering units within the in loop filter 270” [0034]; [0072]);
transmitting an encoded bitstream that includes coded information indicating the values of the filter parameters for performing the CCSO (“An encoder may signal its selected direction in a coded bitstream in an appropriate designator. “[0066]; Alternatively, the number and size of the bands may be defined dynamically during system operation and signaled between an encoder and a decoder at predetermined intervals: [0075])
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Leontaris teaches starting a search in a set of combinations of values for filter parameters of the CCSO, each combination in the set of combinations comprising values respectively for the filter parameters (“minimize over (i.e. select one of) JBO,chroma, Jno — SAO,chroma, and JEO,chroma and determine optimal chroma parameters by selecting the option with the minimum cost” [0164]);
selecting values of the filter parameters for performing the CCSO for filtering the one or more blocks in the current picture based on a result from the search, the result from the search excluding the one or more second combination (“Video encoder 20 may decide LCU parameters by minimizing over JSAO, Jmerge — left, and Jmerge — up, i.e. selecting the parameters associated with the least cost.” [0122]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to improve the video coding quality (Leontaris [0104]).
Leontaris does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Hsaing teaches determining that a first rate distortion cost associated with one or more first combination in the set of combinations satisfies a condition (“ At step 802, the inter rate-distortion cost can be compared to a first threshold, T1” [0043]; “if the approximated cost for a given prediction mode is greater than the assigned threshold, we can be confident that the actual R-D cost for this mode is unlikely to the lowest cost among all candidate modes”[0039]).
terminating the search of one or more second combinations in the set of combinations comprising values for the filter parameters of the CCSO when the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition (“the rate-distortion cost approximation for the first intra mode is skipped and the related cost is just set to infinity at step 804 such that the first intra mode will not be chosen by the mode decision logic in the future “[0043]; “The further refinement of rate-distortion estimation for this mode is thus skipped to save the computational resource” [0039]), wherein a rate distortion cost associated with each of the one or more second combinations is not calculated when the search is terminated,(“ Otherwise, the mode I4×4 is not selected by setting JI4×4* to Infinity.” [0043]; “once the rate-distortion cost accumulated from individual 4×4 block rate-distortion costs reaches Jmin, the algorithm blocks JI4×4* and JI4×4 (803 and 807 of FIG. 7) can skip the calculations of rate-distortion costs for all the remaining unprocessed 4×4 blocks in the current macro-block.”[0055]), the set of combinations including the one or more first combinations that have been searched and the one or more second combinations that are not searched (“The optimal macro-block mode decision among all candidate modes typically proceeds in an exhaustive approach” [0009]; “Accordingly, embodiments of the invention are directed to a method that reduces the complexity associated with the search for the lowest cost function” [0010]; [0057]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du to add the cost analysis as disclosed by Leontaris to further add the early termination as disclosed by Hsaing to improve compression efficiency (Hsaing [0031]).
Claims 3-5, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing) further in view of Mei Guo (US 20180352225 A1) (hereinafter Guo):
Regarding Claim 3. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 1; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises:
determining that the first rate distortion cost is greater than a first threshold cost, the first threshold cost being a multiplication of a rate distortion cost of unfiltered samples by the CCSO with a first threshold value.
However, in an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises:
determining that the first rate distortion cost is greater than a first threshold cost, the first threshold cost being a multiplication of a rate distortion cost of unfiltered samples by the CCSO with a first threshold value (“[0092] For example, in the selection of starting band position for luma, the rate-distortion (RD) cost for band i (denoted as RD_i) is multiplied by a weighting factor f_i, then (RD_i*f_i) is utilized to select the first band that is signaled where the signaled bands are continuous” [0092]; “The threshold could be specified at both encoder and decoder. It could also be chosen at encoder and signaled in the bitstream for each component of each sequence, each frame, or each slice “[0106]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 4. Du in view of Leontaris and Guo teach the method of claim 3. Du further teaches a first filter shape and a first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]) … the first filter shape and the first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]).
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein each of the one or more first combinations comprises a respective first number of bands … the one or more second combinations comprises a respective second number of bands that is different from the first numbers of bands ("Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets," [00531]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 5. Du in view of Leontaris and Guo teach the method of claim 3, Du further teaches wherein the one or more first combinations comprise a first quantization step and a first subset combination of values comprising … and first filter shape, the one or more second combination comprise the first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]).
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Guo teaches a first number of bands and … a second subset combination of values comprising at least one of a second number of bands that is different from the first number of bands and/or a second number of filter shape that is different from the first filter shape ("Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets," [00531]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 16. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 14; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises:
determining that the first rate distortion cost is greater than a first threshold cost, the first threshold cost being a multiplication of a rate distortion cost of unfiltered samples by the CCSO with a first threshold value.
However, in an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises:
determining that the first rate distortion cost is greater than a first threshold cost, the first threshold cost being a multiplication of a rate distortion cost of unfiltered samples by the CCSO with a first threshold value (“[0092] For example, in the selection of starting band position for luma, the rate-distortion (RD) cost for band i (denoted as RD_i) is multiplied by a weighting factor f_i, then (RD_i*f_i) is utilized to select the first band that is signaled where the signaled bands are continuous” [0092]; “The threshold could be specified at both encoder and decoder. It could also be chosen at encoder and signaled in the bitstream for each component of each sequence, each frame, or each slice “[0106]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 17 Du in view of Leontaris and Guo teach the method of claim 16. Du further teaches a first filter shape and a first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]) … the first filter shape and the first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]).
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein each of the one or more first combinations comprises a respective first number of bands … the one or more second combinations comprise a respective second number of bands that is different from the first numbers of bands ("Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets," [00531]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 18. Du in view of Leontaris and Guo teach the method of claim 16, Du further teaches wherein the one or more first combinations comprise a first quantization step and a first subset combination of values comprising … and first filter shape, the one or more second combination comprise the first quantization step (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel” [0081]; “The quantizer 256 may perform quantization” [0027]).
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Guo teaches a first number of bands and … a second subset combination of values comprising at least one of a second number of bands that is different from the first number of bands and/or a second number of filter shape that is different from the first filter shape ("Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets," [00531]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Claims 6, 10, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing) further in view of Juhan Pekka Maaninen (US 9781418 B1) (hereinafter Maaninen):
Regarding Claim 6. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 1; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises: determining that, for a first subset of the filter parameters, a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters achieves a lowest rate distortion cost for one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Maaninen teaches wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises: determining that, for a first subset of the filter parameters, a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters achieves a lowest rate distortion cost for one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters (“The one or more coefficients are a subset of one or more quantized coefficients in a quantized block. The computation component calculates a cost value for each of the one or more candidate blocks based at least in part on a rate value and a distortion value of the one or more coefficients in each of the one or more candidate blocks” [Col 2 Line 9-16]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Maaninen to improve visual quality of an image (Maaninen [Col 4 line 48]).
Regarding Claim 10. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 1; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the determining that the first rate distortion cost satisfies the condition further comprises:
determining that, in an evaluation of one or more combinations of values for a first subset of the filter parameters with a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters, the one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters have higher rate distortion cost than a lowest rate distortion cost that is achieved from combinations of values that have been evaluated before the evaluation
However, in an analogous art, Maaninen teaches determining that, in an evaluation of one or more combinations of values for a first subset of the filter parameters with a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters, the one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters have higher rate distortion cost than a lowest rate distortion cost that is achieved from combinations of values that have been evaluated before the evaluation (“The computation component calculates a cost value for each of the one or more candidate blocks based at least in part on a rate value and a distortion value of the one or more coefficients in each of the one or more candidate blocks. The selector component selects a candidate block from the one or more candidate blocks with a lowest calculated cost value as an output block” [Col 2 Lines 11-18]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Maaninen to improve visual quality of an image (Maaninen [Col 4 line 48]).
Regarding Claim 13. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 1. Du further teaches for the one or more first combination of values for the filter parameters [band information for the reconstructed sample r.sub.0rth may be computed not only from its own value but also the values of reconstructed samples r.sub.nat of other color components to which the reconstructed sample r.sub.0rth is related. [0060]),
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Maaninen teaches calculating an accumulated rate distortion cost for a first plurality of blocks in the one or more blocks, the one or more blocks including the first plurality of blocks and one or more additional blocks (“The rate and distortion for each of the coefficients (e.g., c0-c15) can be calculated. Therefore, a cost value based on the rate and the calculated distortion can be calculated for each block (e.g., each EOB indicator location). For example, coefficients c0 and c1 can be used to calculate the cost value for the candidate block B2 and the rate generated by the rate value of the EOB indicator can be accumulated.” [Col 11 lines 8-14]);
comparing the accumulated rate distortion cost with a lowest rate distortion cost of combinations that have been evaluated before the one or more first combination (“At 804, it can be determined if the calculated cost is less than the best cost (e.g., using a selector component 108). For example, it can be determined if the calculated cost is better than a cost value of a previous candidate block. If yes, the methodology 800 can proceed to 806“[Col 12 lines 50-55]); and
skipping a rate distortion cost calculation for the one or more additional blocks when the accumulated rate distortion cost is higher than the lowest rate distortion cost (“if the input block (e.g., quantized block) matches a candidate block Bj for some j, candidate blocks Bj+1, Bj+2, etc. are not generated and/or are considered invalid candidate blocks. An invalid candidate block can be a candidate block that is not processed by the computation component 106 (e.g., a cost value is not calculated for an invalid candidate block).” [Col 10 lines 58-63]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Maaninen to improve visual quality of an image (Maaninen [Col 4 line 48]).
Regarding Claim 19. Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing teach the method of claim 14; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine that, for a first subset of the filter parameters, a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters achieves a lowest rate distortion cost for one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Maaninen teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine that, for a first subset of the filter parameters, a specific combination of values for a second subset of the filter parameters achieves a lowest rate distortion cost for one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters (“The one or more coefficients are a subset of one or more quantized coefficients in a quantized block. The computation component calculates a cost value for each of the one or more candidate blocks based at least in part on a rate value and a distortion value of the one or more coefficients in each of the one or more candidate blocks” [Col 2 Line 9-16]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris and Hsaing to further add the teachings of Maaninen to improve visual quality of an image (Maaninen [Col 4 line 48]).
Claims 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing) in view of Juhan Pekka Maaninen (US 9781418 B1) (hereinafter Maaninen) further in view of Nan Hu (US 20210067793 A1) (hereinafter Hu):
Regarding Claim 7. Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing and Maaninen teach the method of claim 6; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the second subset of the filter parameters that is different from the specific combination of values for the second subset.
However, in an analogous art, Hu teaches wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the second subset of the filter parameters that is different from the specific combination of values for the second subset (“determine a number of bits, k, used to represent a decimal value for a filter coefficient of a cross-component adaptive loop filter; determine that a dynamic range of the filter coefficient comprises (−(1<<(k−c))+1, (1<<(k−c))−1) for a value of c, c representing an offset value to the value of k,” [0008]; “means for coding a set of filter coefficients for a cross-component adaptive loop filter; means for decoding a first block of a first chroma component and a second block of a second chroma component, the first chroma component being different than the second chroma component; means for performing cross-component adaptive loop filtering of the first decoded block using the set of filter coefficients; and means for performing cross-component adaptive loop filtering of the second decoded block using set of filter coefficients.” [0198]; Examiner note: the filter coefficients are dynamically determined within a defined range; the different combination of values create distinct parameter sets).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing and Maaninen to further add the teaching of Hu To reduce the cost of video coding (Hu [0020]).
Regarding Claim 20. Du in view of Leontaris and Maaninen teach the method of claim 6; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the second subset of the filter parameters that is different from the specific combination of values for the second subset.
However, in an analogous art, Hu teaches wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the second subset of the filter parameters that is different from the specific combination of values for the second subset (“ determine a number of bits, k, used to represent a decimal value for a filter coefficient of a cross-component adaptive loop filter; determine that a dynamic range of the filter coefficient comprises (−(1<<(k−c))+1, (1<<(k−c))−1) for a value of c, c representing an offset value to the value of k,” [0008]; “means for coding a set of filter coefficients for a cross-component adaptive loop filter; means for decoding a first block of a first chroma component and a second block of a second chroma component, the first chroma component being different than the second chroma component; means for performing cross-component adaptive loop filtering of the first decoded block using the set of filter coefficients; and means for performing cross-component adaptive loop filtering of the second decoded block using set of filter coefficients.” [0198]; Examiner note: the filter coefficients are dynamically determined within a defined range; the different combination of values create distinct parameter sets].
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing and Maaninen to further add the teaching of Hu To reduce the cost of video coding (Hu [0020]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing) in view of Juhan Pekka Maaninen (US 9781418 B1) (hereinafter Maaninen) in view of Nan Hu (US 20210067793 A1) (hereinafter Hu) further in view of Mei Guo (US 20180352225 A1) (hereinafter Guo):
Regarding Claim 8. Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, Maaninen, and Hu teach the method of claim 7; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the second subset of the filter parameters comprises a number of bands, the specific combination of values for the second subset comprises a specific value for the number of bands, and the one or more second combination of values comprise: one or more value for the number of bands that is different from the specific value for the number of bands.
However, in an analogous art, Guo teaches wherein the second subset of the filter parameters comprises a number of bands, the specific combination of values for the second subset comprises a specific value for the number of bands, and the one or more second combination of values comprise: one or more value for the number of bands that is different from the specific value for the number of bands. (“For BO filter modes, the sample range of each component may be unequally divided into a number of bands based on the distribution of samples, the EOTF of an HDR image source, and one perceptually uniform EOTF. Each component (such as Y, Cr, and Cb) may have a different band configuration and different range for signaled offsets. A band configuration may include a number of bands, and the boundaries between bands. Each band may have an upper and lower boundary that defines a range of component amplitude values that are included in that band. For encoding efficiency, the range (maximum and minimum value) of offsets that can be signaled in a lookup table in an encoded bitstream may be limited. Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets. In the selection of the starting band position for BO, different weights may be given to the rate-distortion (RD) cost of the bands based on the distribution of samples, the EOTF of HDR source, and one perceptually uniform EOTF.” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, Maaninen, and Hu to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Regarding Claim 9. Du in view of Leontaris, Maaninen, Hu, and Guo teach the method of claim 7. Du further teaches wherein the second subset of the filter parameters comprises: … the quantization step … a second specific value for the quantization step … and a second value for the quantization step … and the second value is different from the second specific value for the quantization step (“For each filter direction, the CCSO 400 may calculate a pair of delta values m.sub.0, mi represented as m.sub.j = r.sub.orth --.sub.Pj, where j = 0, 1. Thereafter, the index calculator 420 may generate quantization value d.sub.0, di from the delta values m.sub.0, mi as: [00001]di=−1, if m< −thr; [00002] di=0, if−thr<=m<=thr; And [00003]di=1, if m > thr. where thr is a quantization step size, thr can be a predetermined value set by the encoder. For example, thr may take values of 8, 16, 32, or 64. Moreover, the thr value may be set dynamically during operation and may be signaled from an encoder to a decoder in a coded bitstream. “[0067])
Du does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Guo teaches the number of bands … the specific combination of values for the second subset comprises a first specific value for the number of bands … and the one or more second combination of values comprise: a first value for the number of bands … the first value is different from the first specific value for the number of bands (“For BO filter modes, the sample range of each component may be unequally divided into a number of bands based on the distribution of samples, the EOTF of an HDR image source, and one perceptually uniform EOTF. Each component (such as Y, Cr, and Cb) may have a different band configuration and different range for signaled offsets. A band configuration may include a number of bands, and the boundaries between bands. Each band may have an upper and lower boundary that defines a range of component amplitude values that are included in that band. For encoding efficiency, the range (maximum and minimum value) of offsets that can be signaled in a lookup table in an encoded bitstream may be limited. Each component may have a different number of bands, a different number of bands with signaled offsets (bands which have a corresponding offset signaled in an encoded bitstream), and a different range of values for the signaled offsets. In the selection of the starting band position for BO, different weights may be given to the rate-distortion (RD) cost of the bands based on the distribution of samples, the EOTF of HDR source, and one perceptually uniform EOTF.” [0053]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, Maaninen, and Hu to further add the teachings of Guo to improve filtering of images (Guo [0007]).
Claims 11- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yixin Du (US 20230143147 A1) (hereinafter Du) in view of Athanasios Leontaris (US 20150215617 A1) (hereinafter Leontaris) in view of Shih-Ta Hsaing (US 20080112481 A1) (hereinafter Hsaing) in view of Juhan Pekka Maaninen (US 9781418 B1) (hereinafter Maaninen) further in view of Wenbin Yin (US 20240187580 A1) (hereinafter Yin):
Regarding Claim 11. Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, and Maaninen teach the method of claim 10; however, does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the first subset of the filter parameters that is different from the one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters.
However, in an analogous art, Yin teaches wherein the one or more second combination of values comprise: a combination of values for the first subset of the filter parameters that is different from the one or more combinations of values for the first subset of the filter parameters (“filter can be applied differently to each video unit group, for example by employing different parameters. In an example, the video unit groups may be selected based on a video unit class index, unit mean value, variance, size, or combinations thereof. In another example, the samples in the picture can be grouped into sample groups (e.g., irrespective of video unit), and the bilateral filter can be applied differently to each sample group, for example by employing different parameters. In an example, the sample groups may be selected based on statistical information determined by comparing samples within a window. For example, such statistical information may include mean value, a variance, a minimum gradient, a maximum gradient, a mean gradient, or combinations thereof. The bilateral filter may also be applied at various positions relative to other in-loop filters.” [0082]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-component based filtering system as disclosed by Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, and Maaninen to further add the teaching of Yin to improve coding efficiency (Yin [0076]).
Regarding Claim 12. Du in view of Leontaris, Hsaing, Maaninen, and Yin teach the method of claim 11. Du further teaches wherein the first subset of the filter parameters comprises the quantization step (“For each filter direction, the CCSO 400 may calculate a pair of delta values m.sub.0, mi represented as m.sub.j = r.sub.orth --.sub.Pj, where j = 0, 1. Thereafter, the index calculator 420 may generate quantization value d.sub.0, di from the delta values m.sub.0, mi as: [00001]di=−1, if m< −thr; [00002] di=0, if−thr<=m<=thr; And [00003]di=1, if m > thr. where thr is a quantization step size, thr can be a predetermined value set by the encoder. For example, thr may take values of 8, 16, 32, or 64. Moreover, the thr value may be set dynamically during operation and may be signaled from an encoder to a decoder in a coded bitstream “[0067]), and the second subset of the filter parameters comprises, the filter shape (“the CCSO 400 may have multiple candidate filter shapes that may be selected according to signaling provided in a channel.” [0081]).
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 MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights