DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20050013494 A1 (hereinafter Srinivasan)
US 20120257702 A1 (hereinafter Narroschke)
US 20130003865 A1 (hereinafter Norkin)
US 20130101024 A1 (hereinafter Van)
US 20080117980 A1 (hereinafter Hung)
US 20050276505 A1 (threshold based on boundary strength {para 34}:using two threshold in filtering decision {para 45} )
ENJAMIN BROSS et al, "WD4: Working Draft 4 of High-Efficiency Video Coding", JCTVC-F803_d6, Joint 21 collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCTVC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, July 14-22, 011, Torino, Italy, 229 pages.: (hereinafter HEVCWD4, see analysis in earlier office action)
US 20130266061 A1(para 11-26: adaptive deblocking filtering at the common edge)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Srinivasan in view of further embodiment of Srinivasan in view of Narroschke
Regarding Claims 1. Srinivasan teaches 1. a system comprising: a processor configurable:
decode an image including a coding block [(para 65 )] compute a first measure of deviation at a first four-sample boundary segment based on a first set of samples in an image [(Fig.9; computing edge strength {para 104} Fig.9 shows four-sample boundary. a deviation based on sample set P1-P8 on row 3rd {Fig.9 and Fig. 10} )] ,
: compute a second measure of deviation at the first four-sample boundary segment based on a second set of samples in the image, [(while Fig.9 shows that edge strength test is perform only on one line; the deviation/edge strength can be determined at a second row {i.e. second set of samples} . See para 103 “can perform the edge strength test at other numbers of the locations per block edge segment fewer than all locations” )]
and make a filter on/off decision jointly for all rows of the first four-sample boundary segment using the first and second measures of deviation [(based on edge checks above filtering or not decision is made {para 100})] : and a display coupled to the processor and configured to display the image [(para 27 performed in TV)] .
wherein first four-sample boundary segment is part of a filtering [( para 65)]
While Srinivasan’s same embodiment does not teach wherein the first set of samples is offset from the second set of samples by three samples, however this is taught by further embodiment of Srinivasan:[(“ Further, alternative embodiments of the video encoder/decoder can use different locations or patterns of locations within a segment, e.g., the first, second or fourth row in lieu of the third row location”, para 103; therefore the combination teaches than for each four sample segment the deviation can be calculated at row 1 and row 4)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to combine the teaching of the prior art embodiments because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Though Srinivasan does not explicitly show wherein first four-sample boundary segment is part of a filtering block and wherein the filtering block is offset from the coding block by four samples, this seems to be intuitive based on filtering on 8x8 blocks with 4 sample on the edge, keeping 4 sample offset.
However, Narroschke, in the same field of endeavor teaches this explicitly [( Fig.6, para 29-30)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to combine the teaching of the prior art embodiments because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities, as both the prior arts are teaching deblocking filtering using 4 pixels on each side of boundaries
Additional limitations of the following claims are taught by Srinivasan as follows:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to apply a deblocking filter to the first four-sample boundary segment in response to making a filter on decision for the first four-sample boundary segment. [(para 100 & 103)]
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: compute a third measure of deviation at a second four-sample boundary segment based on a third set of samples in the image, wherein the third set of samples is offset from the second set of samples by one sample: [(see analysis of claim 1; when deviation calculation is done on row 1and 4 of each four sample segments {as analyzed in claim 1}, for a two segments, as shown in {Fig.8}, the 4th row of top segment is one sample above the 1st row of bottom segment )] compute a fourth measure of deviation at the second four-sample boundary segment based on a fourth set of samples in the image:[(row 4 of bottom segment)] and make a filter on/off decision jointly for all rows or columns of the second our-sample boundary segment using the third and fourth measures of deviation: [(based on edge checks above filtering or not decision is made {para 100})]
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the fourth set of samples is offset from the third set of samples by three samples. :[(row 1 and 4 of bottom segment)]
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the first four-sample boundary segment is a vertical boundary segment. [(Fig.9)]
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of samples includes a row of eight samples, and wherein the second set of samples includes a row of eight samples. [(Fig.9, P1-P8)]
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the display includes a light emitting diode display configured to display the image. [(Examiner takes official notice that this is well known TV/display)]
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the display includes a liquid crystal display configured to display the image. [(Examiner takes official notice that this is well known TV/display)]
Regarding Claims 9-16: See analyses of claims 1-8
Regarding Claims 17-20: See analyses of claims 1-8 and note for edges running horizontally (Fig.7) the samples are column samples.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights