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
This action is in response to the remark entered on September 11, 2025.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, 18-19 & 21-24 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 & 18-19 are amended.
Claims 7, 15, 17 & 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 09/11/2025, pages 11-12, regarding the double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks filed 09/11/2025, page 12, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The preamble to claim 18 continues to recite the product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream/image data and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream, and is anticipated by Lee.
Therefore the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Applicant's remarks filed 09/11/2025, pages 12-14, regarding the rejection of claim 1, 9 & 18 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2014/0211848 A1) (hereinafter Hsu) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0404258 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/792,380) (hereinafter Wang) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1, 9 & 18 below, where Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations are addressed by Hsu and Wang and are rejected for the reasons outlined below.
Applicant’s remarks filed 09/11/2025, page 14, with respect to the patentability of claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Hsu and Wang teaches independent claims 1, 9 & 18 as outlined below. Thus, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16 & 19 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2018-0032775 A) (hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 18, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor performing a method […], the method comprising,” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream/image data and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream. The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording/storage medium storing the claimed bitstream/image data in claims 18-19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream/image data and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream/image data and recording/storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lee which recites in Pg.10 fourth paragraph, wherein picture stored in memory 245, as non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for decoding and reconstruction.
Dependent claim 19 fall accordingly.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 18-19 & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2014/0211848 A1) (hereinafter Hsu) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0404258 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/792,380) (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a method of decoding an image [Paragraph [0006], decoding process], the method comprising:
determining a first prediction mode of a first block in a current picture; determining a second prediction mode of a second block in the current picture; and determining a filtering strength of a boundary between a first sample of the first block and a second sample of the second block based on the first prediction mode and the second prediction mode, wherein the filter strength is determined in a case that the boundary is comprised in 4x4 block boundaries, the 4x4 block boundaries are boundaries formed by 4x4 blocks when the current picture is partitioned into the 4x4 blocks [Paragraph [0026]-[0030] & [0041]-[0049], Figs. 7A-11, boundary strength determination between 4x4 blocks partitioned within 8x8 blocks using the p & q samples within the P and Q blocks, and determining the prediction modes each of P or Q blocks by determining if one or the other is intra-coded].
However, Hsu does not explicitly disclose the filtering strength is a strong filtering strength in a case that a Combined Intra Inter Prediction (CIIP) mode is used for at least one of the first prediction mode of the first block and the second prediction mode of the second block.
Wang teaches of the filtering strength is a strong filtering strength in a case that a Combined Intra Inter Prediction (CIIP) mode is used for at least one of the first prediction mode of the first block and the second prediction mode of the second block [Paragraph [0183], [0311] & [0316]-[0319], Fig. 7, Table 1, supported in pg. 32-33 of provisional, if at least one block of P and Q is a block with CIIP prediction, then the boundary strength parameter of this boundary is set to a first value, for example, the first value may equal to 2, wherein BS set to 2 is the strongest].
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 Hsu to integrate the deblocking filter techniques in Wang as above, to improve the deblocking filter to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality (Wang, Paragraph [0004] & [0185]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Wang teaches wherein the strong filtering strength is 2 [Paragraph [0183], [0311] & [0316]-[0319], Fig. 7, Table 1, supported in pg. 32-33 of provisional, if at least one block of P and Q is a block with CIIP prediction, then the boundary strength parameter of this boundary is set to a first value, for example, the first value may equal to 2, wherein BS set to 2 is the strongest].
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 Hsu to integrate the deblocking filter techniques in Wang as above, to improve the deblocking filter to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality (Wang, Paragraph [0004] & [0185]).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore Wang teaches wherein the filtering strength is a weak filtering strength in a case that at least one of the first block and the second block comprises at least one transform coefficient which is not equal to 0 [Paragraph [0193]-[0196], Fig. 7-8, Table 1, supported in pg. 34 of provisional, if at least one of the adjacent blocks P and Q has non-zero transform coefficients. then the boundary strength parameter of this boundary is set to a second value, for example, 1 as weak filtering].
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 Hsu to integrate the deblocking filter techniques in Wang as above, to improve the deblocking filter to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality (Wang, Paragraph [0004] & [0185]).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu and Wang disclose the method of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Hsu discloses wherein the boundary is a transform block boundary [Paragraph [0043], Fig. 8, If the test result of step 820 is No (as indicated by “N” in FIG. 8), a further test 830 is performed. In step 830, the test, “((Boundary is TU boundary) and (P or Q contains coefficients)) or (P and Q have different reference picture or MV difference>4)?” is performed].
Regarding claims 9-10 & 13-14, claims (9-10 & 13-14) are drawn to an encoding method having limitations similar to the decoding method of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2 & 5-6) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (9-10 & 5-6) correspond to method claims (1-2 & 5-6) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Hsu discloses of an encoding method [Paragraph [0003], Encoding process].
Regarding claims (18-19), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (18-19) recite similar features as recited in method claims (1-2). Thus, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (18-19) correspond to method claims (1-2), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Wang teaches of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor performing a method to generate the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, storing first prediction information indicating the first prediction mode and second prediction information indicating the second prediction mode in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as in the method of claim 1 [Paragraph [0062] & [0094], supported in pgs. 6-9 & 15-16 in provisional, A video encoding device may encode and store data to memory, and/or a video decoding device may retrieve and decode data from memory. In some examples, the encoding and decoding is performed by devices that do not communicate with one another, but simply encode data to memory and/or retrieve and decode data from memory].
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 Hsu to integrate the deblocking filter techniques in Wang as above, to improve the deblocking filter to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality and transfer encoded data from memory (Wang, Paragraph [0004] & [0185]).
Regarding claims 21-22, claims (21-22) are drawn to a method having limitations similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (21-22) correspond to method claims (1-2) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Hsu discloses of sending the bitstream comprising first prediction information and second prediction information [Paragraph [0004]-[0005], Figs. 1A-1B, bitstream sent from encoder 122 to decoder 142].
Regarding claims (23-24), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (23-24) recite similar features as recited in method claims (1-2). Thus, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (23-24) correspond to method claims (1-2), and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Wang teaches of non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing program instructions for transmitting a bitstream, the program instructions comprising: an instruction to perform generating the bitstream; and an instruction to transmit the bitstream as in the method of claim 1 [Paragraph [0157], supported in pgs. 27 in provisional, The memory 460 may comprise one or more disks, tape drives, and solid-state drives and may be used as an over-flow data storage device, to store programs when such programs are selected for execution, and to store instructions and data that are read during program execution].
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 Hsu to integrate the deblocking filter techniques in Wang as above, to improve the deblocking filter to improve compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in picture quality and automate the process for deblocking video images (Wang, Paragraph [0004] & [0185]).
Claims 3-4 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2014/0211848 A1) (hereinafter Hsu) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0404258 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/792,380) (hereinafter Wang) in view of Marzuki et al., “Modified Deblocking Filtering Process for Intra Block Copy (IBC),” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Sapporo, Document JCTVC-R0118, 30 June - 9 July 2014, 5 pages (hereinafter Marzuki).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu and Wang disclose the method of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Hsu and Wang do not explicitly disclose the particulars of claim 3.
Marzuki teaches wherein the filtering strength is a weak filtering strength in a case that an Intra Block Copy (IBC) mode is used for both of the first prediction mode of the first block and the second prediction mode of the second block [Section 2, Table 1, Proposed deblocking filter for intra copy, Fig. 2 When both blocks are encoded with IBC, boundary strength filtering is 1, as weak filtering]
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 Hsu to incorporate and be combined with the deblocking filter determination process by considering different prediction mode cases and considering other conditions for boundary strengths of 1 in Marzuki as above, to consider Intra Block copy blocks for visual quality improvement and coding gain (Marzuki, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu, Wang, and Marzuki disclose the method of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Marzuki teaches wherein the weak filtering strength is 1 [Section 2, Table 1, Proposed deblocking filter for intra copy, Fig. 2 When both blocks are encoded with IBC, boundary strength filtering is 1, as weak filtering]
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 Hsu to incorporate and be combined with the deblocking filter determination process by considering different prediction mode cases and considering other conditions for boundary strengths of 1 in Marzuki as above, to consider Intra Block copy blocks for visual quality improvement and coding gain (Marzuki, Abstract).
Regarding claims 11-12, claims (11-12) are drawn to an encoding method having limitations similar to the decoding method of using the same as claimed in claims (3-4) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (11-12) correspond to method claims (3-4) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Hsu discloses of an encoding method [Paragraph [0003], Encoding process].
Claim 8 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2014/0211848 A1) (hereinafter Hsu) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0404258 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/792,380) (hereinafter Wang) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0016550 A1) (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu and Wang disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However neither Hsu nor Wang teach the particulars of claim 8.
Kim teaches wherein the filtering strength is determined based on whether the first block and the second block are luma blocks or not [Paragraph [0060], In some examples, the boundary strength for the non-luma components can be calculated in the same way that the boundary strength is calculated for the luma component. Or, in some examples, the same boundary strength that is calculated for the luma component can be applied for the chroma component, meaning filtering strength is calculated based upon whether component is luma or non-luma].
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 Hsu to incorporate and be combined with the deblocking filter determination process in Kim as above, to improve the visual quality achieved as a result of deblock filtering, strong filtering is allowed for (i.e., may be applied to) chroma components or for all color components (e.g., R, G, and B in case of the RGB color space) (Kim, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claims 16, claim (16) is drawn to an encoding method having limitations similar to the decoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 8 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim (16) correspond to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Hsu discloses of an encoding method [Paragraph [0003], Encoding process].
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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