Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-4 of the amendment, Applicant argued that Lainema and Kwon fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the third reference value is a weighted average of boundary estimates that are each derived from pixels closest to the boundary and are calculated for the line of pixels and for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kwon clearly teaches wherein the third reference value is derived from pixels of the first block and the second block that are closest to the boundary, and wherein the third reference value is a weighted average of boundary estimates that are each derived from pixels closest to the boundary (fig. 29, b= (V7+V8)/2 is considered a weighted average with equal weighting factors set to 1/2, wherein V7 and V8 are pixels from two blocks closest to the block boundary) and are calculated for the line of pixels (see fig. 29) and for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels (see fig. 4, which shows that the line of pixels is adjacent to other lines of pixels);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim teaches the limitation “…wherein the third reference value is a weighted average of boundary estimates that are each derived from pixels closest to the boundary and are calculated for the line of pixels and for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels.” It is unclear what applicant means by boundary estimates…are calculated for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels. The specification as-originally filed does not teach “parallel line of pixels” or explain the bolded part of the limitation above. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers that any line of pixels is parallel to other lines of pixels within a block or macroblock.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lainema et al. (US 2011/0170609) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Lainema” in view of Kwon et al. (US 2005/0243911) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Kwon”.
As per claim 1, Lainema discloses a method of decoding an encoded video sequence including a plurality of images, with each image of the plurality of images including a plurality of blocks (fig. 6, decoder), the method comprising:
providing first and second blocks of an image of the encoded video sequence, wherein the first and second blocks are adjacent blocks of the image (paragraph 0167, current and previously reconstructed neighboring block);
defining a line of pixels extending across a boundary between the first and second blocks (paragraph 0146, the second filter 392 may define the values of eight pixels from the neighbouring block and eight pixels of the current block as is depicted in FIG. 9b) wherein the line of pixels includes a first plurality of pixels of the first block and a second plurality of pixels of the second block (paragraph 0146, the second filter 392 may define the values of eight pixels from the neighbouring block and eight pixels of the current block as is depicted in FIG. 9b);
calculating a first reference value based on a first pixel from the first plurality of pixels that is most distant from the boundary (fig. 9b, reference pixel 907; paragraph 0147, the second filter 392 selects left most value inside filtering window as first reference value 907);
calculating a second reference value based on a second pixel from the second plurality of pixels that is most distant from the boundary (fig. 9b, reference pixel 908; paragraph 0147, the second filter 392 selects…right most value inside filtering window as first reference value 908);
calculating filtered pixel values for each pixel of the line of pixels between the first pixel and the second pixel (figs. 9b, 9d, 9e; paragraph 0147, in some example embodiments, the other pixel values are determined by interpolating from the first reference value to the second reference value),
generating first and second filtered blocks corresponding to the first and second blocks using the filtered pixel values (paragraph 0167, If both the neighbouring block and the current block has a flat nature, the deblocking processor 393 may select the second filter 395 to perform similar filtering operations to the block boundary than the second filter 392 of the encoder has performed and which was discussed above (blocks 704, 705 and 706). Otherwise, the deblocking processor 393 may select the first filter 396 of the decoder or another filter to perform the deblocking filtering (block 703)); and
generating a decoded video sequence including a decoded image based on the first and second filtered blocks (output of decoder in fig. 6).
However, Lainema does not explicitly disclose calculating a third reference value on the boundary between the first and second blocks, wherein the third reference value is derived from pixels of the first block and the second block that are closest to the boundary, and wherein the third reference value is a weighted average of boundary estimates that are each derived from pixels closest to the boundary and are calculated for the line of pixels and for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels;
wherein calculating the filtered pixel values comprises interpolating pixel values between the first reference value and the third reference value using samples of the first block, and interpolating pixel values between the second reference value and the third reference value using samples of the second block.
In the same field of endeavor, Kwon discloses calculating a third reference value on the boundary between the first and second blocks, wherein the third reference value is derived from pixels of the first block and the second block that are closest to the boundary, and wherein the third reference value is a weighted average of boundary estimates that are each derived from pixels closest to the boundary (fig. 29, b= (V7+V8)/2 is considered a weighted average with equal weighting factors set to 1/2, wherein V7 and V8 are pixels from two blocks closest to the block boundary) and are calculated for the line of pixels (see fig. 29) and for at least one adjacent parallel line of pixels (see fig. 4, which shows that the line of pixels is adjacent to other lines of pixels);
wherein calculating the filtered pixel values comprises interpolating pixel values between the first reference value and the third reference value using samples of the first block (fig. 29, a= (V6+V7)/2, wherein V6 and V7 are pixels from the top block; paragraphs 0124-0125), and interpolating pixel values between the second reference value and the third reference value using samples of the second block (fig. 29, c= (V8+V9)/2, wherein V8 and V9 are pixels from the bottom block; paragraphs 0124-0125);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lainema in view of Kwon, by using simple averaging operations to implement the interpolation operations for horizontal/vertical boundary filtering in order to reduce the computational complexity of the interpolation (Kwon, paragraph 0123-0124).
Conclusion
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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