DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR l.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR l.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (03/30/2026) has been entered.
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 .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon new entry, claims (60 -79) remain pending for examination, of which (60, 74, 79) being the three (3) parallel-running independent claims on record, being amended. Claims (60, 64, 65, 67 -74, and 78) were amended in total.
4. Examiner thanks’ Applicant representative (Atty. C. Dixon; Reg. No, 79,927) for the new list of amendments provided, detailed remarks, and for the cooperation expediting the case.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but they’re not persuasive, for at least the following reasons:
5.1. The undersigned considers that the previously presented combined prior art (PA) on record, very well discloses all the features and limitation as claimed, as 2D/3D panoramic codec system, employing pipeline architecture design, for bilateral filtering/deblocking implementation(s), in accordance with the AVC format…, which for the most part, were part of the common knowledge at the time of the invention.
5.2. More specifically, the previously recorded combination of Hu/Briggs (see FOA, recorded on 12/29/2025) similarly discloses: …a 2D/3D panorama multi-camera system (Fig. 7), employing deblock filtering technique(s), including filter adaptation (i.e. feedback), via filtering the obtain depth information (Figs. 22, 23, 27) associated with the current video block, with and/or without continuity; [Briggs; Cols. 12 -13, 32]; …as part of a commonly used codec ecosystem in accordance with the AVC standard, [Briggs; 12: 10], able to determine and employ depth information, with or without discontinuity around objects, as in details shown in Figs. (31 -32); [Briggs; Cols. (12 -13) and 32].
Further, Briggs discloses filters blurs a depth map implementation(s) for image reconstruction, based on a machine-learned set of depth transform parameters on the image; [3: 10 and 23: 61].
Further, Briggs teaches analogous functionality associated with training algorithm implementation, that may modify and signaling weights (i.e. depth and/or other parameters (2720)), imputed to the filter unit, in order to improve the filtering (2740) operations, Fig. 27; [Briggs; 28: 25]).
5.3. Examiner still considers that the no allowable subject matter has been yet identified in the claims. The claims language instead lists a set of well-known feature techniques, for codec and filtering applications, commonly used and well documented, way before the invention was filed/made.
5.4. Regarding the new amended features, Applicant’s remarks, and rationale/motivation of the mapped new feature-claims, please refer to the Rejection section (6) below, for details and specifics.
5.4.1. The new amendments, are basically directed to “post filtering” techniques of the same. In this regard, Hu specifically teaches the possibility of using “post filtering” applications (i.e. post-process deblock filtering [Chap. 4.3]), for image’s edge reconstruction, as shown in Fig. 6; [page 3], in accordance with H264/AVC format; [Hu; Chap. 4].
5.4.2. In the same field of endeavor, Yea discloses the use of “post bilateral filter” (after reconstruction filter; [6: 25]), able to eliminate/reduce pixel corruption at the edges (Figs. 7C/D), improving video quality, and having fewer artifacts along the depth discontinuity; Figs. (7A/B); [Yea; 6: 25 – 6: 35].
Finally, the Office considers Applicant's arguments not persuasive, as applied rejection on record as a whole reads on the claimed construction, establishing the "Prima Facie" case of equivalent disclosures, on the basis of a person of ordinary skills in the art would have recognized the similar elements shown, or the same structural similarities shown, wherein such structure/methodology performs the same identical functions in substantially the same way, able to produce the same identical results.
_ See [MPEP – 2183]. Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
_ See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568]; …also when similar structure applies;
_ See Kemco Sales, Inc. vs. Control Papers., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308] …when identical functionality is specified in the claim, in substantially the same way.
Claim rejection section
6. This is a quotation of 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 through 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
6.1. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) that applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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 obviousness or non-obviousness
6.2. Claims (60 -79) stand herein rejected 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hu; et al. “Trained Bilateral Filters and Applications to Coding Artifacts Reduction”; hereafter “Hu”, in view of Briggs et al. US Patent 10,262,238 B2, (“Briggs”) and further in view of Yea; et al (US Patent 8,270,752 B2).
Claim 60. (Currently Amended) Hu discloses the invention substantially as claimed - A video decoding device, comprising: (e.g. a codec implementation in accordance with the h.264/AVC standard, (that by definition is able to process 2D and/or 3D/depth image/video data, emphasis added), able to satisfy artifact reduction requirements, as shown in Figs. (1 and 4); [chap. (3-4)], also employing trained bilateral/deblock filters techniques, as illustrated in at least Fig. 2; [chap. (2 -3)].).
Given the teachings of Hu; et al. as a whole, and under the obvious assumption and purpose of his papers, it is noted that some of the functional steps/components as listed (i.e. no encoder/decoder schematic disclosed), are missed or not fully described in the papers.
For the purpose of additional clarification, and in the same field of endeavor, Briggs; et al discloses a 3D capable multi-camera system (Figs. 1, 28), in accordance with the well-known compression standards [Briggs;12: 10], with similar architectural support from at least Fig. (7), able to eliminate/reduce artifact/noise in the process, comparing/difference (2230) the two 3D components (i.e. left & right images), as shown in Figs (22 -23), similarly employing depth information, with or without discontinuity around objects, as shown in Figs. (31 -32); [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10; and Col. 32].
More specifically Briggs discloses - a processor configured to: (e.g. processing unit (714), Fig. 7; [Briggs; 11: 33]); obtain video data that includes a current video block; (e.g. see video camera sensor (700), Fig. 7; [Briggs; 20: 36]); obtain depth information associated with the current video block; (e.g. see depth calculation unit (716), Fig. 7; [Briggs; 11: 33]);
determine whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block based on the depth information, (e.g. see Figs. (31-32), Fig. 7; [Briggs; 11: 33; Col. 32]) based on a determination that a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block, (e.g. depth flag (930) for continuity check, Figs. (9 -10); [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10; Col. 32]);
adapt a post- filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information; (e.g. see post-processing of the same; [Hu: Chap. 4:3]; also
see deblock filtering accordantly (1060) based on depth map information (1050); as simulated in Figs. 10 A/B; [Briggs; 13: 35]);
It is note however, that Hu/Briggs very briefly discloses the use of post-filtering application(s) as claimed.
For the purpose of additional clarification and in the same field of endeavor, Yea discloses a codec ecosystem of the same (encoder/decoder in Figs (3 A/B), where depth (with and/or without discontinuity) is processing; [Cols 5 -6] similarly employing a combined pre/post processing filtering (360) technique (Fig. 5); [Cols. 3: 38; 6: 25]).
and process the current video block based at least on apply the adapted post-filtering operation to a reconstructed sample of the current video block; (e.g. see post processing filtering technique of the reconstructed samples; (Fig. 5); [Cols. 6: 25].).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu’s papers with the multi-camera codec system of Briggs, in order to provide (e.g. a multi-view environment, able to similarly capture & create panoramic video/images in form of “omni-directional," "360-degree" or "spherical" type content, also employing a pipeline architecture to generate a depth map for the image to effectively permit generation of consistently synthetic views, across overlapping (or not) camera views, effectively providing a depth estimate for pixels in the images, and also able to accurately change depth across frames and between objects and backgrounds if required; [Briggs; Cols. 1-2]; and further combined with the post-process bilateral filter technique (i.e. after reconstruction filter; [6: 25]), of Yea, applied to the reconstructed images, to produce final image’s edge without corruption (Figs. 7C/D), improving video quality, meaning, having fewer artifacts along the depth discontinuity; Figs. (7A/B); [Yea; 6: 25 – 6: 35].).
Claim 61. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 60, wherein the video data includes an indication indicating that a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block, wherein the processor being configured to determine whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block is further based on the indication; (e.g. see depth flag (930) for continuity check, Figs. (9 -10); [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 62. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 60, wherein the processor being configured to determine whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block is further based on a depth component available at the video decoding device; (e.g. depth flag (930) for continuity check, Figs. (9 -10); [Briggs; 12 -13]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 63. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 62, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on the depth component available at the video decoding device, at least one of a position or a direction of the depth discontinuity in the current video block; (e.g. see continuity depth map, including position and direction, as shown in Fig. 10 A/B; [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 64. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 60, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with at least one of a bilateral filter (BLF), a deblocking filter (DBF), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, or a cross-component sample adaptive offset (CC-SAO) filter. (e.g. H.264/AVC deblock techniques supported in the standard; [Hu; page 1].)
Claim 65. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 64, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with the DBF, (e.g. see deblocking filtering technique in accordance with the compression standards; [Hu; Chap. 4.3]) and wherein the processor being configured to adapt the post-filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information comprises the processor being configured to: (e.g. see similar post processing filtering techniques in [Hu; 4.3] and similar in [Yea; Col. 6]);
determine a depth difference between a first sample and a second sample based on the depth information; (e.g. training adaptive bilateral filter and/or In-loop filters in the process; [Hu; Chap. 4.3; 5]; and [Yea; Col. 6]); and when applying the DBF to the first sample based on the second sample, determine a strength of the DBF based on the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample; (e.g. see deblock filter (i.e. ILF) strength/tap parameters adjustment, using BS/QP parameters, in accordance with the AVC codec; [Hu; Chap. 4.3]).
Claim 66. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 65, wherein the strength of the DBF is set at a first value if the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample is greater than a threshold value, and wherein the strength is set at a second value if the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample is equal to or less than the threshold value; (e.g. error refinement (i.e. difference or disparity) between samples is implemented based on plurality of predetermined threshold parameters associated with depth; [Briggs; Col. 17: 65; 21: 17; 29: 28; 32: 50]; the same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 67. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 66, wherein a contribution of the second sample to the post-filtering operation is adjusted such that the contribution is inversely proportional to the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample; (e.g. where spatial differences between pixel samples is determined, filtered and trained in at least [HU; Chap. 2]);
Claim 68. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 64, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with the BLF, and wherein the processor being configured to adapt the post-filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information comprises the processor being configured to: (e.g. see BLF similarly used in a standard AVC codec implementation; [HU; Chap. 1])
determine a depth difference between a first sample and a second sample based on the depth information; (e.g. spatial differences between pixel samples is determined, filtered and trained in at least [HU; Chap. 2]); and when applying the BLF to the first sample based on the second sample, (e.g. filter is applied to the estimated difference (2230) between the involved images; Fig. (22-23); [Briggs; 24: 37) determine a contribution of the second sample to the post-filtering operation based on the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample; (e.g. apply deblock filtering accordantly (1060) based on depth map information (1050); as simulated in Figs. 10 A/B; [Briggs; 13: 35]);
Claim 69. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 64, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with the SAO filter, (e.g. see AVC standard configuration of the deblock techniques, that by definition includes SAO filters; [HU; Chap. 4.3.]) and wherein the processor being configured to adapt the post-filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information comprises the processor being configured to: (e.g. depth flag (930) for continuity check, Figs. (9 -10); [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10]); determine, based on the depth information, a depth difference between a first sample and a second sample; and when applying the SAO filter to the first sample based on the second sample, determine a filtering offset to be applied to the first sample based on the depth difference between the first sample and the second sample; (e.g. see H.264/AVC deblocking techniques supported in the standard; [Hu; page 1; Chap. 4].)
Claim 70. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 64, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with the CC-SAO filter, wherein the depth information associated with the current video block includes a depth component associated with the current video block, and wherein the processor being configured to adapt the post-filtering operation based at least on the depth information comprises the processor being configured to: determine a filtering offset associated with the CC-SAO filter based on the depth component; (e.g. see H.264/AVC deblocking techniques supported in the standard; [Hu; page 1; Chap. 4].)
Claim 71. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 64, wherein the post-filtering operation is associated with the ALF, and wherein the processor being configured to adapt the post-filtering operation based at least on the depth information comprises the processor being configured to: determine one or more classification parameters associated with the ALF based on the depth information. (e.g. see H.264/AVC deblocking techniques supported in the standard; [Hu; page 1; Chap. 4].)
Claim 72. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of claim 60, wherein the post-filtering operation is an in-loop filtering operation or an out-of-loop post-filtering operation; (e.g. see “in-loop filter” implementation as post processing in both Hu and Yea; in accordance with the H264/AVC codec; [Hu; page 1; Chap. 4].)
Claim 73. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The video decoding device of any of claim 60, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain motion information associated with the current video block; and adapt the post-filtering operation associated with the current video block further based on the motion information; (e.g. see depth-map; inter-frame prediction (i.e. Motion estimation/compensation) implemented herein; [Briggs; 1: 60]; the same motivation applies herein.
Claim 74. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - A method implemented by a video decoding device, the method comprising: obtaining video data that includes a current video block; obtaining depth information associated with the current video block; determining whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block based on the depth information; based on a determination that a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block, adapting a post-filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information; and processing the current video block based at least on applying the adapted post-filtering operation to a reconstructed sample of the current video block. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claim (60) above, but in “Method” form instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Claim 75. (Previously Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The method of claim 74, wherein obtaining the depth information associated with the current video block comprises determining, based on a depth component available at the video decoding device, whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block. (depth processing, (e.g. see depth processing with or without discontinuity around objects, as shown in Figs. (31 -32); [Briggs; 12: 50 -13: 10; and Col. 32]; The same disclosed in at least [Yea; Cols. 5 -6]; same motivation applies herein.)
Claim 76. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The method of claim 75, further comprising determining, based on the depth component available at the video decoding device, at least one of a position or a direction of the depth discontinuity in the current video block. (The same rationale/motivation apply as given to Claim (63) above.)
Claim 77. (Presented) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The method of claim 74, wherein the filtering operation is associated with at least one of a bilateral filter (BLF), a deblocking filter (DBF), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, or a cross-component sample adaptive offset (CC-SAO) filter; (e.g. see H.264/AVC deblock techniques supported in the standard; [Hu; page 1; Chap. 4].)
Claim 78. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - The method of claim 74, further comprising: obtaining motion information associated with the current video block, wherein the post-filtering operation associated with the current video block is adapted further based on the motion information. (The same rationale/motivation apply as given to Claim (73) above.)
Claim 79. (Currently Amended) Hu/Briggs/Yea discloses - A computer program product which is stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprises program code instructions for implementing the method of claim 74 that when executed by a processor causes the processor to: obtain video data that includes a current video block; obtain depth information associated with the current video block; determine whether a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block based on the depth information; based on a determination that a depth discontinuity exists in the current video block, adapt a post- filtering operation associated with the current video block based at least on the depth information; and apply the adapted post-filtering operation to a reconstructed sample of the current video block. (Current lists all the same elements as recite in Claims (60 and 74) above, but in “non-transitory CRM product” form instead, and is/are therefore on the same premise.)
Prior Art Citations
7. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
7.1. Patent documentation:
US 8,270,752 B2 Yea; Sehoon et al. G06T5/70;
US 8,374,456 B2 Vetro; Anthony et al. G06T3/40; G06T5/77; H04N13/10
US 10,262,238 B2 Briggs; et al. G06V10/147; G06V30/19147;
US 11,972,561 B2 Lampros; et al. G06T7/11; G06T7/174; G06T7/0012;
US 11,562,468 B2 Brownlee; et al. G06T5/70; G06T5/20; G06T5/60;
US 11,532,073 B2 Vogels; et al. G06T5/50; G06T5/70; G06N7/01;
US 11,503,286 B2 Lim; et al. H04N19/117; H04N19/122; H04N19/70;
7.2. Non-Patent Literature:
_ Fast depth image denoising and enhancement using deep convolutional network - 2016;
_ Trained Bilateral Filters and Applications to Coding Artifacts Reduction; Hu - 2007;
_ Learning sparse high dimensional filters; Jampani - 2016;
CONCLUSIONS
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov)
whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on
Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated system, please call (800) 786 -9199 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
Prosecution Insights