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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed with an RCE on 01/06/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 2012/0051438) in view of Liu (US 2021/0385446).
As to claim 18, Chong teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first filter shape from a plurality of filter shapes, the first filter shape being indicated in the bitstream (paras. 32-37, 39, 74-78, 86-91, 94-97, 101-105, 108-114, and 122-123);
determining, based on the first filter shape, a first filter for coding a first sample of the current video block; and performing the conversion based on the first filter (paras. 32-37, 39, 74-78, 86-91, 94-97, 101-105, 108-114, and 122-123).
Chong does not teach a value of a clip parameter of the first filter being dependent on the first filter shape.
However, Liu teaches a value of a clip parameter of a first filter being dependent on a first filter shape (paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chong’s system with Liu’s system to show a value of a clip parameter of the first filter being dependent on the first filter shape in order to provide more computationally efficient and flexible adaptive loop filter coding techniques.
As to claims 1, 19, and 21, the aforementioned claims are rejected similarly as claim 18.
As to claim 7, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the first sample is a luma sample, and the clip parameter is indicated in a syntax element structure (Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 8, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the first sample is a chroma sample, and the clip parameter is indicated in a syntax element structure (Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 9, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the first filter is associated with a set of filters with the first filter shape, and a clip parameter of the set of filters is indicated in a syntax element structure (Chong; paras. 32-37, 39, 74-78, 86-91, 94-97, 101-105, 108-114, and 122-123; Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 10, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the number of coefficients of the first filter is dependent on the first filter shape, the coefficients being indicated in a syntax element structure (Chong; paras. 32-37, 39, 74-78, 86-91, 94-97, 101-105, 108-114, and 122-123; Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 11, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the number of clip parameters of the first filter is dependent on the first filter shape, the clip parameters being indicated in a syntax element structure (Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 13, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the set of parameters comprise: a set of coefficients of the first filter, or a set of clip parameters of the first filter (Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 14, the combination of Chong and Liu teaches wherein the first filter shape is one of: a symmetrical filter shape, a diamond filer shape, a cross filter shape, an asymmetrical filter shape, or a square filter shape (Liu; paras. 44, 61, and 176-190).
As to claim 16, Chong further teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see FIGs. 3 and 4 and their corresponding paragraphs).
As to claim 17, Chong further teaches wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see FIGs. 3 and 4 and their corresponding paragraphs).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Liu and further in view of Taquet (US 2022/0078415).
As to claim 6, the combination of Chong and Liu does not teach wherein the first sample is a sample of a color component different from luma and chroma.
However, Taquet teaches an example of a sample of a color component involved in adaptive loop filtering being different from luma and chroma (Taquet; para. 478).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chong’s system and Liu’s system with Taquet’s system to show wherein the first sample is a sample of a color component different from luma and chroma in order to provide more computationally efficient and flexible adaptive loop filter coding techniques.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 12, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection incorporated above. In addition, Examiner maintains that the Chong reference discloses the claim limitation of “the first filter shape being indicated in the bitstream” as seen in the above rejection of claim 18.
In view of the above reasons, Examiner maintains all rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 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 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482