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
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections to claims 46 and 56 have been withdrawn in view of current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.7-8, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 41, 46, 51, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly considered prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 41-42, 46-47, 51-52, 56, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2020/0404279).
Regarding claim 41 Deng discloses a method for video decoding, the method comprising:
obtaining video data representative of a part of a picture (decoder receiving picture, sub-pictures, tiles, slices, bricks, macroblocks, CUs, Tus, and/or Pus – [0028]);
decoding, with a constant resolution, at least one syntax data element, the at least one syntax data element specifying an adaptation to a complexity of a set of coding tools configured to emulate reference picture resampling (RPR) (based on the first flag indicating that the reference picture resampling is enabled, obtaining from the encoded video bitstream a second flag indicating whether reference pictures have a constant reference picture size indicated in the encoded video bitstream; based on the first flag indicating that the reference picture resampling is enabled, obtaining from the encoded video bitstream a third flag indicating whether output pictures have a constant output picture size indicated in the encoded video bitstream; based on the second flag indicating that the reference pictures have the constant reference picture size, generating a reference picture by resampling the decoded picture to have the constant reference picture size – [0008]; it is noted a constant picture size is a constant resolution); and
decoding, with the constant resolution, the video data using the set of coding tools configured to emulate RPR (decoding encoded data based on flag signaling – [0098-0107]).
Examiner’s Note: The claimed invention emulates an RPR method. Emulation means reproducing the function or action. The claimed invention reproduces the action of RPR. Choi discloses a RPR method.
Regarding claim 42 Choi discloses the method of claim 41, wherein the set of coding tools comprises two or more decoding tools (process 700 may include determining from the first flag whether reference picture resampling is enabled (block 704). If reference picture resampling is enabled (YES at block 704), process 700 may proceed to block 705. In embodiments, if reference picture resampling is not enabled, process 700 may decode the encoded video bitstream according to a different process – [0100]).
Claim 46 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 41. Therefore, claim 46 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 41.
Claim 47 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 42. Therefore, claim 47 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 42.
In regards to claim 51, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 51 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 41.
In regards to claim 52, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 52 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 42.
In regards to claim 56, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 56 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 41.
In regards to claim 57, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 57 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 42.
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.
Claim(s) 43, 48, 53, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0404279) in view of Deng et al. (US 2024/0098254).
Regarding claim 43 Choi discloses the method of claim 41. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of coding tools comprises a transform, and wherein the adaptation comprises at least one of: modifying a primary transform of the transform by using a low-pass filter that passes half the frequencies of an input block, deriving a maximum number of non-zero coefficients output by the transform from a scaling ratio, or multiplying a minimum transform size of the transform by a scaling ratio.
In his disclosure Deng teaches wherein the set of coding tools comprises a transform (transform – [0476, 0481, 0486]), and wherein the adaptation comprises at least one of: modifying a primary transform of the transform by using a low-pass filter that passes half the frequencies of an input block, deriving a maximum number of non-zero coefficients output by the transform from a scaling ratio, or multiplying a minimum transform size of the transform by a scaling ratio (the scaling ratio is restricted to be larger than or equal to ½ (2 times downsampling from the reference picture to the current picture), and less than or equal to 8 (8 times upsampling). Three sets of resampling filters with different frequency cutoffs are specified to handle various scaling ratios between a reference picture and the current picture. The three sets of resampling filters are applied respectively for the scaling ratio ranging from ½ to 1/1.75, from 1/1.75 to 1/1.25, and from 1/1.25 to 8 – [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Deng into the teachings of Choi because such incorporation improves hardware implementations in terms of memory loading (paragraph 152).
Claim 48 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 43. Therefore, claim 48 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 43.
In regards to claim 53, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 53 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 43.
In regards to claim 58, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 58 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 43.
Claim(s) 44, 49, 54, and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0404279) in view of Samuelson et al. (US 2021/0368208).
Regarding claim 44 Choi discloses the method of claim 41. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of coding tools comprises a partitioning, and wherein the adaptation comprises at least one of: increasing a luma coding tree block size with a scaling ratio, and increasing a minimum luma coding block size with a scaling ratio.
In his disclosure Samuelson teaches the set of coding tools comprises a partitioning, and wherein the adaptation comprises at least one of: increasing a luma coding tree block size with a scaling ratio, and increasing a minimum luma coding block size with a scaling ratio (sps_log2_ctu_size_minus5 plus 5 specifies the luma coding tree block size of each CTU – [0182]; pps_log1_ctu_size_minus5 plus 5 specifies the luma coding tree block size of each CTU – [0428]).
It would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Samuelson into the teachings of Choi because such incorporation yields the predictable result of improving video coding.
Claim 49 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 44. Therefore, claim 49 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 44.
In regards to claim 54, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 54 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 44.
In regards to claim 59, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 59 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 44.
Claim(s) 45, 50, 55, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0404279) in view of Bordes et al. (US 2024/0323367).
Regarding claim 45 Choi discloses the method of claim 41. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of coding tools comprises a post-filter, and wherein the adaptation comprises using signaled post-filter parameters for a larger area than a coding block size.
In the disclosure Bordes teaches the set of coding tools comprises a post-filter, and wherein the adaptation comprises using signaled post-filter parameters for a larger area than a coding block size (log 2_ctu_size_minus5 plus 5 allows deriving the ALF block size alfCtbSizeY – [0124]).
It would be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bordes into the teachings of Choi because such incorporation yields the predictable result of improving video coding.
Claim 50 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 45. Therefore, claim 50 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 45.
In regards to claim 55, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 55 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 45.
In regards to claim 60, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Claim 60 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 45.
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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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 S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482