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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (claims 12-15) in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language, “[t]his disclosure relates […]” in the abstract recites legal phraseology and is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz et al. (US 2022/0103816 A1) (hereinafter Karczewicz) in view of Ye et al. (US 2020/0288173 A1) (hereinafter Ye).
Regarding claim 12, Karczewicz discloses a method for decoding a current block of a current frame in a coded video bitstream [Paragraph [0006] & [0041], method of filtering decoded video data, wherein encoded video stream includes signaling information used by video decoder to process video blocks], the method comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, the coded video bitstream [Paragraph [0193]-[0197], Fig. 7, Video decoder receives coded video bitstream at CPB memory 320 implemented by one or more processors];
determining, by the device based on the coded video bitstream, a prediction mode for predicting the current block based on a reference block of a reference frame [Paragraph [0058]-[0061], [0069], [0195], Fig. 7, Prediction processing unit 304 includes motion compensation unit 316 for inter-prediction, that performs a motion search to identify a reference block that closely matches the CU, e.g., in terms of differences between the CU and the reference block];
determining, by the device based on the coded video bitstream, a scaling factor for the current block [Paragraph [0094]-[0119], [0195], Fig. 7, Video decoder 300 may determine the scaling factor from the data signaled in the corresponding data structure.]; and
reconstructing, by the device, the current block based on the reference block and the determined scaling factor according to a linear equation [Paragraph [0149]-[0154], [0177]-[0186], [0194]-[0213], Eqs. 7-8, Residuals filtered with linear eqs. 7-8 including scaling factor, and combined with inter-predicted current block to reconstruct current block].
However, Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose of a scaling factor for luma or chroma components of the current block.
Ye teaches of a scaling factor for luma or chroma components of the current block [Paragraph [0127]-[0138], [0162]-[0168], explicit signaling of chroma and luma scalar factors].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Karczewicz to add the teachings of Ye as above, improving the video coding quality and greatly reducing the costs for bandwidth and storage (Ye, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Karczewicz and Ye disclose the method according to claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Ye teaches wherein: signaling of the scaling factor for the chroma component is based on signaling of the scaling factor for the luma component [Paragraph [0108]-[0109], luma-dependent chroma residual scaling can be performed, if luma mapping is enabled and if dual tree partition is not applied to the current tile group, an additional flag (e.g., tile_group_reshaper_chroma _residual_scale_flag) is signaled to indicate if luma-dependent chroma residual scaling is enabled or not].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Karczewicz to add the teachings of Ye as above, improving the video coding quality and greatly reducing the costs for bandwidth and storage (Ye, Paragraph [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487