DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 – 10, applicant argues that amendments made to claim 20 overcome examiner’s interpretation that the claimed computer-readable medium does not provide a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate, and the subsequent 102 rejection in light of that interpretation. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on MPEP 2111.05 in maintaining the claim interpretation of claim 20.
While the amended claim recites instructions that cause a computing device to generate a bitstream, the bitstream stored on a computer readable medium, the instructions generating the bitstream are not stored on the computer readable medium; rather only a resulting bitstream is stored on the computer readable medium. It is the bitstream itself that must cause the computing device to perform a function. Examiner therefore finds that there is no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and an intended computer. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. The rejection is maintained.
On pages 10 – 11, applicant argues that Tourapis does not teach classifying samples and determining a look-up table for the sample based on the classification because Tourapis teaches adjusting an offset based on the brightness of the sample, and not selecting a look-up table based on a classification of the sample. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Tourapis in maintaining the rejection.
Tourapis first teaches that a look-up table (LUT) is adjusted and/or selected based on the content of the video. See, e.g. pars. 57 – 63: describing that the system modifies the coefficients of LUTs based on the content of the video being filtered, the LUTs to be used being selected by signaling. As admitted by applicant, Tourapis next teaches that samples are classified into bands, and that LUTs are adjusted based on the band classification of a sample. See, e.g. par. 75: describing that the system classifies sample values into brightness bands, each band associated with a different signaled adjustment for the LUTs. In other words, Tourapis teaches adjusting LUTs based on band classification of sample. This reasonably suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a LUT for a sample is selected based on a classification of the sample. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
At present claim 20, is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors, cause the noe or more processors to perform video processing method,” followed by a plurality of steps which appear to be an encoding method. While the encoding method may be performed by an intended computer, the decoding method is not stored on the computer readable storage medium. Rather, only bitstream data is stored on the computer readable storage medium. It is the bitstream itself, therefore, that must have a functional relationship. Because there are no recitations of the bitstream itself causing an intended computer to perform some function, Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is encoded are not given patentable weight. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Examiner further notes that claims are interpreted in the alternative only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karczewicz et al. (US 2019/0014349) (hereinafter Karczewicz), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, claim 20 has been interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and associated case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a video processing method.” As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is encoded should not be given patentable weight. Karczewicz teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information (Karczewicz, e.g. Fig. 1, element 26, and par. 32: depicting and describing a storage device storing encoded data, wherein the storage device is the equivalent of the non-transitory computer readable medium, and wherein the encoded data is the equivalent of the bitstream comprising video information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 12 and 14 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tourapis et al. (US 2021/0051320) (hereinafter Tourapis) in view of Karczewicz et al. (US 2019/0014349) (hereinafter Karczewicz), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 20 Tourapis teaches a video processing method for bilateral filtering in video coding, a video processing apparatus performing bilateral filtering in video coding comprising a memory coupled to one or more processors and the one or more processors are configured to perform the video processing method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information to be decoded by acts of the video processing method, the video processing method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a reconstructed block for in-loop filtering, wherein the reconstructed block is reconstructed from a video block of a video frame from a video (e.g. Fig. 1, element 116 and, and par. 28: depicting and describing that the system receives reconstructed video data for in-loop filtering, the reconstructed video data including a block of reconstructed video);
applying, by the one or more processors, a bilateral filtering scheme to the reconstructed block to generate a plurality of bilateral filtering offsets for a plurality of reconstructed samples in the reconstructed block (e.g. Fig. 1, element 122, and pars. 29 – 30: depicting and describing that the system applies a bilateral filter to the reconstructed video data to generate offsets for the reconstructed samples in the reconstructed video data); and
generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of filtered samples based on the plurality of bilateral filtering offsets (e.g. Fig. 1, element 122, and pars. 28 – 31: depicting and describing that the system generates filtered reconstructed samples based on the generated bilateral filtering offsets),
wherein when the bilateral filtering scheme comprises a classification-based bilateral filtering scheme, applying the bilateral filtering scheme to the reconstructed block comprises: dividing the reconstructed block into a plurality of sub-blocks; classifying the plurality of sub-blocks into one or more categories; determining one or more look-up tables (LUTs) for the one or more categories, respectively; and for each reconstructed sample in a sub-block that is classified into a corresponding category, applying a LUT determined for the corresponding category to generate a bilateral filtering offset for the reconstructed sample (e.g. par. 75: describing that luminance intensity [brightness] of each reconstructed block is classified into bands, the system making adjustments to LUT values used to perform bilateral filtering based on the classified band a reconstructed block is classified into, wherein adjusting LUT values based on band classification reasonably suggests determining a LUT based on the category, wherein adjusting LUT values based on band classification is the equivalent of classification-based bilateral filtering).
Tourapis does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of filtered samples are used as inputs to subsequent adaptive loop filtering.
Karczewicz, however, teaches a video processing method for bilateral filtering, a video processing device for bilateral filtering, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream:
wherein the plurality of filtered samples are used as inputs to subsequent adaptive loop filtering (e.g. Fig. 9 and par. 116: depicting and describing that the filtered samples are used as inputs to subsequent adaptive loop filtering).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tourapis by adding the teachings of Karczewicz in order for the plurality of filtered samples to be used as inputs to subsequent adaptive loop filtering. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering (Karczewicz, e.g. par. 6: describing a desire to reduce the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering).
Turning to claim 2, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein when the bilateral filtering scheme comprises an adaptive bilateral filtering scheme, wherein applying the bilateral filtering scheme to the reconstructed block comprises: applying a look-up table (LUT) corresponding to the video frame to the reconstructed block to generate the plurality of bilateral filtering offsets for the plurality of reconstructed samples, wherein the LUT is adaptively derived from the video frame (e.g. par. 29: describing that the bilateral filtering scheme is an adaptive bilateral filtering scheme, the bilateral filtering applying a look-up table corresponding to the video frame of the reconstructed block [e.g. pars. 32, 48, and 57 - 63: describing that the system derives and selects a LUT to be applied based on characteristics of the block to be filtered, wherein deriving and selecting a LUT to be applied based on characteristics of the block to be filtered reasonably suggest a LUT corresponding to the video frame]).
Regarding claim 3, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein applying the LUT corresponding to the video frame to the reconstructed block comprises:
for each reconstructed sample from the plurality of reconstructed samples which is a center sample of a bilateral filtering window, determining a set of weighting factors based on a set of neighboring samples in the bilateral filtering window (e.g. par. 33 – 36: describing that for a current pixel to be filtered, determines weights based on a spatial distance between the current pixel and neighboring pixels in the bilateral filtering window [see, e.g. Fig. 2 and par. 36: depicting and describing that a current pixel to be filtered [Ic] is at a center of the filtering window, the filtering window further including a set of neighboring pixels]);
determining a modifier sum for the reconstructed sample based on the set of weighting factors and the LUT corresponding to the video frame (e.g. pars. 37 – 38: describing that the system determines a sum of modifier values for the reconstructed sample to be filtered, the modifier values determined based on weighted values of neighboring samples and entries in the LUT corresponding to characteristics of the frame [see, e.g. par. 48 and 57 - 63: describing that the LUT used is based on characteristics of video and block to be filtered]); and
determining a bilateral filtering offset for the reconstructed sample based on the modifier sum (e.g. par. 39: describing that the bilateral filtering offset is based on the modifier sum).
Turning to claim 4, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein determining the modifier sum comprises: calculating the modifier sum as a linear combination of a set of table elements from the LUT corresponding to the video frame based on the set of weighting factors (e.g. pars. 36 – 38: describing that the sum is a weighted sum of elements from the LUT).
Regarding claim 5, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein: the LUT corresponding to the video frame is derived by a video encoder; and the LUT corresponding to the video frame is signaled through a bitstream to a video decoder (e.g. pars. 57 – 63: describing that the encoder derives coefficients for the LUT and signals the LUT to the decoder through a bitstream).
Turning to claim 6, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 5, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein the LUT corresponding to the video frame is derived by the video encoder at least by: forming a training dataset which comprises a plurality of training samples, wherein each training sample comprises a corresponding reconstructed sample, neighboring samples of the corresponding reconstructed sample, and an original sample of the corresponding reconstructed sample; and applying a least-square method to the training dataset to derive a set of table elements for the LUT corresponding to the video frame (e.g. par. 63: describing that the LUT tables are derived based on training, wherein deriving filter values based on training necessarily includes having a training dataset which comprises training samples, the training samples being reconstructed samples, neighboring samples corresponding to the reconstructed samples and original samples corresponding to the reconstructed sample, the training including applying an error reduction method to the training dataset to derive an optimal set of elements).
Regarding claim 7, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein when the bilateral filtering scheme is a position-dependent bilateral filtering scheme, applying the bilateral filtering scheme to the reconstructed block comprises: applying one or more position-dependent look-up tables (LUTs) to the reconstructed block to generate the plurality of bilateral filtering offsets for the plurality of reconstructed samples (e.g. par. 64: describing that the LUT used in the bilateral filtering is based on a distance between a current sample to be filtered and other samples [describing that the LUT is selected based on QP value of the current sample, the QP value of the current to be used in selecting the LUT is derived based on a distance between the current sample and other QP groups], wherein selecting a LUT to be used based on a distance between the current sample and other samples is the equivalent of position-dependent bilateral filtering).
Turning to claim 8, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein applying the one or more position-dependent LUTs to the reconstructed block comprises:
for each reconstructed sample from the plurality of reconstructed samples which is a center sample of a bilateral filtering window, determining a plurality of modifier values for a plurality of neighboring samples in the bilateral filtering window based on the one or more position-dependent LUTs (e.g. par. 33 – 36: describing that for a current pixel to be filtered, the system determines modifier values based on neighboring samples and the LUT, the LUT being a position based look-up table [see discussion above]);
determining a modifier sum for the reconstructed sample as a sum of the plurality of modifier values frame (e.g. pars. 37 – 38: describing that the system determines a sum of modifier values for the reconstructed sample to be filtered); and
determining a bilateral filtering offset for the reconstructed sample based on the modifier sum (e.g. par. 39: describing that the bilateral filtering offset is based on the modifier sum).
Regarding claim 9, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein determining the plurality of modifier values for the plurality of neighboring samples comprises: for each neighboring sample from the plurality of neighboring samples, determining, from the one or more position-dependent LUTs, a position-dependent LUT for the neighboring sample based on a distance between the neighboring sample and the center sample; and determining a modifier value for the neighboring sample based on the determined position-dependent LUT (e.g. par. 33 – 36: describing that for each neighboring pixel to a current pixel to be filtered, the system determines modifier values based on the selected LUT, the LUT being a position-based look-up table [see discussion above]).
Turning to claim 10, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein: the plurality of neighboring samples are divided into one or more sample groups, with corresponding neighboring samples in each sample group having an identical distance to the center sample; and the corresponding neighboring samples in each sample group are applied with an identical position-dependent LUT from the one or more position-dependent LUTs (e.g. Fig. 2 and par. 36: depicting and describing that the neighboring samples to the current sample are the same distance from the current sample, the modifier values for the neighboring samples derived using the same LUT, the LUT being a position-dependent LUT [see discussion above]).
Regarding claim 11, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more position- dependent LUTs is an LUT which is fixed and the same for different video frames from the video (e.g. par. 57: describing that the LUTs are fixed and the same for each frame of the video).
Turning to claim 12, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more position- dependent LUTs is adaptively derived from the video frame (e.g. par. 57: describing that the LUTs are adaptive and based on characteristics of the video, wherein characteristics of the video reasonably suggests characteristics of the video frame).
Regarding claim 14, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis does not explicitly teach:
wherein classifying the plurality of sub- blocks into the one or more categories comprises: classifying each sub-block into a corresponding category based on a directionality and activity value of the sub-block.
Karczewicz, however, teaches a video processing method for bilateral filtering:
wherein classifying the plurality of sub- blocks into the one or more categories comprises: classifying each sub-block into a corresponding category based on a directionality and activity value of the sub-block (e.g. par. Fig. 9 and par. 116: depicting and describing that bilateral filtering is included in adaptive loop filtering, wherein it is known that in adaptive loop filtering, reconstructed samples are classified based on a direction and activity value).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tourapis by adding the teachings of Karczewicz in order for classifying the plurality of sub- blocks into the one or more categories to comprise: classifying each sub-block into a corresponding category based on a directionality and activity value of the sub-block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering (Karczewicz, e.g. par. 6: describing a desire to reduce the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering).
Turning to claim 15, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein classifying the plurality of sub- blocks into the one or more categories comprises: classifying each sub-block into a corresponding category based on a band index of the sub- block (e.g. par. 75: describing that the system classifies reconstructed blocks into bands).
Regarding claim 16, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more LUTs is an LUT which is fixed and the same for different video frames from the video (e.g. par. 57: describing that the LUTs are fixed and the same for each frame of the video).
Turning to claim 17, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more LUTs is adaptively derived from the video frame (e.g. par. 57: describing that the LUTs are adaptive and based on characteristics of the video, wherein characteristics of the video reasonably suggests characteristics of the video frame).
Regarding claim 19, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach all of the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above. Tourapis further teaches:
wherein the bilateral filtering scheme further comprises an adaptive bilateral filtering scheme or a position-dependent bilateral filtering scheme, or a classification-based bilateral filtering scheme (e.g. par. 29: describing that the bilateral filtering scheme is an adaptive bilateral filtering scheme).
Turning to claim 21, Tourapis and Karczewicz teach performing the video processing method of claim 1 to generate a bitstream, as discussed above. Tourapis does not explicitly teach:
storing the bitstream.
Karczewicz, however, teaches a method for storing a bitstream:
storing the bitstream (e.g. Fig. 1, element 26, and par. 32: depicting and describing a storage device storing encoded data, wherein the storage device is the equivalent of the non-transitory computer readable medium, and wherein the encoded data is the equivalent of the bitstream comprising video information).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tourapis by adding the teachings of Karczewicz in order to store the bitstream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering (Karczewicz, e.g. par. 6: describing a desire to reduce the computational complexity associated with bilateral filtering).
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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights