DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200186798 A1 (Shlyakhov)
US 20200389655 A1 (Seregin)
US 20160286241 A1 (Ridge)
US 20140133547 A1 (Tanaka)
US 20150271529 A1 (Wang)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the combination does not teach the independent claim. Specifically, “filter coefficients that are located in a suffix unit corresponding to a first picture of the video stream, wherein the filter coefficients are for a second picture that follows after the first picture”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Shlyakhov teaches reading, from a video stream, filter coefficients that are located in APS NAL unit corresponding to a first picture of the video stream, wherein the filter coefficients are for a second picture that follows after the first picture [(para 7; ALF coefficients of previous picture {first picture} are used for following/second picture; coefficient is signaled in APS NAL unit {para 109} )] :Therefore if APS NAL unit can be considered as a suffix unit then Shlyakhoy have everything to teach the claimed invention. Though Shlyakhov is silent about whether APS NAL unit can be considered as a suffix unit or not, Seregin explicitly teaches that APS NAL unit in fact is considered as a suffix unit when signalling ALF coefficients (para 104, 113)
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Re: Non-statutory double patenting rejection
Examiner noted and appreciated that applicant agreed to file terminal disclaimer if allowable subject matter is found
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shlyakhov in view of Seregin.
Regarding Claim 1: Shlyakhov teaches a video decoding apparatus comprising: at least one processor and memory, the at least one processor, working together with the memory, configured to perform operations[(Fig.1)] comprising: reading, from a video stream, filter coefficients that are located corresponding to a first picture of the video stream, wherein the filter coefficients are for a second picture that follows after the first picture [(para 7; ALF coefficients of previous picture {first picture} are used for following/second picture; coefficient is signaled in APS NAL unit {para 109} )] : reading, from video data corresponding to a second picture of the video stream, a flag that specifies that an adaptive filter is applied to a specific portion of the second picture [(para 25, a flag indicating temporal prediction for ALF for one or more slices )] : and applying the adaptive filter with the filter coefficients to the specific portion of the second picture. [(para 25)]
Shlyakhov does not explicitly show that the unit is suffix unit
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Seregin teaches the unit is suffix unit [( ALF coefficients are signaled in APS NAL unit that follows/suffix VLC NAL unit { para 104, “APS at the end of an access unit” para 113} supported by 62865044 {para 65})]
Therefore in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Shlyakhov in view of Seregin additionally teaches, with regards to claim 2. The video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the suffix unit is a last unit of an access unit (AU) of the first picture. [(Seregin para 104 & “derived APS at the end of an access unit” 113)]
Shlyakhov in view of Seregin additionally teaches, with regards to claim 3. The video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the video data corresponding to the second picture comprises video coding layer (VCL) network abstraction layer (NAL) units representing one or more slices.[[(Shlyakhov para 90, Seregin para 26)]
Shlyakhov in view of Seregin additionally teaches, with regards to claim 4. The video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the suffix unit corresponding to the first picture comprises a non-VCL NAL unit that follows after all VCL NAL units corresponding to first picture. [(Seregin para 104 & “derived APS at the end of an access unit” 113)]
Shlyakhov in view of Seregin additionally teaches, with regards to claim 5. The video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the specific portion of the second picture comprises a coding tree block (CTB) of the second picture. [(portion is block {Shlyakhovpara 25} blocks are also refereed as coding tree unit or block {para 4})]
Shlyakhov in view of Seregin additionally teaches, with regards to claim 6. The video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter coefficients comprise adaptive loop filter (ALF) parameters, and wherein the flag comprises an ALF CTB flag. [(flag for ALF of block {Shlyakhovpara 25} blocks are also refereed as coding tree unit or block {para 4})]
Regarding Claims 7-26: see analysis of claims 1-6 and note encoding device in Shlyakhov Fig.1; non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed cause a computer to perform the methods of encoding and decoding in Shlyakhov para 162
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12108088. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are taught by the patented claims. The pending independent claims are subset of patented independent claims and are obvious variations thereof. Pending depend claims are also taught by the patented independent and/or dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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