DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 24 NOVEMBER 2025.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 claims “performed by decoder” and should read --performed by a decoder--
Claim 31 claims “performed by a encoder” and should read --performed by an encoder--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 26, the claim defines N as being “16 or less” and it is unclear whether it means N of claim 23 or N of claim 25. For examination purposes, the interpretation includes either N.
Examiner’s Interpretation: Each independent claim recites “an exponential function having a form
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
in which the
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
is computed using a lookup table.” Such a form of an exponential function is mathematically equivalent to a standard exponential function (i.e.,
e
x
). Therefore, whether the mathematical function is presented in a standard exponential function or in the form of
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
, they are considered equivalent and both valid for interpretation. The use of a “lookup table” is also indicative that the broadest reasonable interpretation requires the result of an exponential function and not an express presentation and calculation of the entire exponential function.
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 29, 31-36, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wennersten et al., “AHG10: Encoder-only GOP-based temporal filter” (hereinafter “Wennersten”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0077090 A1 (hereinafter “Andersson”).
Regarding claim 21, Wennersten discloses a method
applying a temporal filter to a current picture (Abstract, p. 1, “Samples in the original picture are temporally filtered”), the applying comprising:
obtaining an exponential function having a form
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
in which the
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
is computed (Section 2.1, p. 3, “
w
r
i
,
a
=
0.4
∙
s
0
∙
s
r
i
,
a
∙
e
-
∆
I
i
2
2
∙
σ
I
Q
P
2
.” Note, the exponential function is
e
and a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily be able to express the exponential function in the equivalent format of
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
);
obtaining a weight of at least one neighboring picture by multiplying a scaling function with the exponential function (Section 2.1, p. 3, “
w
r
i
,
a
=
0.4
∙
s
0
∙
s
r
i
,
a
∙
e
-
∆
I
i
2
2
∙
σ
I
Q
P
2
.” Note, the weight is
w
r
i
,
a
);
obtaining a filtered sample value of the current picture based on a sample value of the current picture and the weight of the at least one neighboring picture (Section 2.1, p. 3, “
I
n
=
I
o
+
∑
i
=
0
3
w
r
i
,
a
I
r
i
1
+
∑
i
=
0
3
w
r
i
,
a
, I0 is the original sample value, Ir is the co-located sample value in the neighboring picture I after motion compensation and wr(I,a) is the weight of neighboring picture I when the number of available neighboring pictures is equal to a”); and
replacing the sample value of the current picture with the filtered sample value (Section 2.1, p. 2, “Step 5: All sample values
I
o
of the original picture are replaced by filtered sample values
I
n
before encoding”); and
(Section 2.1, “Step 6: The filtered picture is encoded”).
Wennersten fails to expressly disclose decoder;
receiving an encoded video bitstream comprising a current picture;
decoding the encoded current picture to generate a decoded picture;
using a lookup table;
reconstructing the decoded current picture.
However, Andersson teaches decoder (FIG. 8, video decoder 60);
receiving an encoded video bitstream comprising a current picture ([0260], “The video decoder 60 comprises a decoder 61, such as entropy decoder, for decoding a bitstream comprising an encoded representation of a sample block”);
decoding the encoded current picture to generate a decoded picture (FIG. 8, video decoder 60 used for decoding the input picture. [0261], “The resulting decoded sample block output from the adder 64 is input to a device 100 for filtering a picture in order to suppress and combat any ringing artifacts”);
using a lookup table ([0084], “An alternative approach is to have one or more look-up tables (LUTs) comprising pre-computed weights.” [0178], “implemented with filtering in float or integers […] a table lookup is used to determine respective weight”);
reconstructing the decoded current picture (FIG. 8, video decoder 60 depicts the steps for reconstructing a picture and applying filtering at device 100).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the steps for decoding and using a table, as taught by Andersson (FIG. 8), in Wennersten’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wennersten’s invention, by incorporating Andersson’s invention, because it is an obvious combination of prior-arts elements for including a decoding method to predictably reconstruct a current picture and the use of look-up tables allow for well-known techniques for faster computation.
Regarding claim 22 Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Andersson teaches wherein the
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
is determined using a logical shift operation ([0179] describes a logical shift as equivalent to a multiplication/division (left-shift/right-shift) factor 2). The same motivation of claim 21 applies to claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Andersson discloses wherein each value stored in the lookup table is less than or equal to N-bits wide ([0029] describes 8 bits used for filtering, meaning the result from a table is as large as 8 bits can represent. [0041] describes an embodiment with five bits enough to represent the largest value. Note, N-bits represents a maximum size, which is inherent to any computer implemented table). The same motivation of claim 21 applies to claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 23, as outlined above. Additionally, Andersson teaches wherein N is equal to 8 or less ([0029] describes 8 bits used for filtering, meaning the result from a table is as large as 8 bits can represent. [0041] describes an embodiment with five bits enough to represent the largest value). The same motivation of claim 21 applies to claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 23, as outlined above. Additionally, Andersson teaches wherein a size of the lookup table is equal to N values or less ([0030] describes a lookup table size with 1040 bytes and the data within is restricted to 8 bits. Note, N values or less represents a maximum size, which is inherent to any computer implemented table). The same motivation of claim 21 applies to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 25, as outlined above. Additionally, Andersson teaches wherein N is 16 or less ([0029-0030] describes data size of N and a lookup table size with 1040 bytes (less than 16 bits)). The same motivation of claim 21 applies to claim 26.
Regarding claim 29, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Wennersten discloses wherein the obtaining the weight further comprises: obtaining one or more values that are multiplied with the exponential function from the lookup table (Section 2.1 discloses functions multiplying the exponential function with multiple values).
Regarding claim 31, the limitations are the same as those in claim 21. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 21 apply equally as well to claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, the limitations are the same as those in claim 22. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 22 apply equally as well to claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations are the same as those in claim 23. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 23 apply equally as well to claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, the limitations are the same as those in claim 24. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 24 apply equally as well to claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, the limitations are the same as those in claim 25. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 25 apply equally as well to claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, the limitations are the same as those in claim 26. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 26 apply equally as well to claim 36.
Regarding claim 39, the limitations are the same as those in claim 29. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 29 apply equally as well to claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, the limitations are the same as those in claim 21. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 21 apply equally as well to claim 40.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 30, 37, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wennersten et al., “AHG10: Encoder-only GOP-based temporal filter” (hereinafter “Wennersten”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0077090 A1 (hereinafter “Andersson”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0121416 A1 (hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 27, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 21, as outlined above. Additionally, Wennersten discloses further comprising:
wherein the obtaining the weight further comprises: converting, using the scaling factor, one or more values to corresponding one or more fixed point values that are multiplied with the exponential function (Section 2.1, p. 3, “
w
r
i
,
a
=
0.4
∙
s
0
∙
s
r
i
,
a
∙
e
-
∆
I
i
2
2
∙
σ
I
Q
P
2
.” Note, the weight is
w
r
i
,
a
is a product of the scaling function
s
r
by the exponential function
e
).
Wennersten and Andersson fail to expressly disclose converting to one or more fixed point values.
However, He teaches converting to one or more fixed point values ([0124], “scaling factors w and o may be converted from floating point precision to integer precision or fixed point precision”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have converted factors of the scaling function to fixed point, as taught by He ([0124]), in Wennersten and Andersson’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wennersten and Andersson’s invention, by incorporating He’s invention, to simplify the encoding process and the computation process ([0124]).
Regarding claim 28, Wennersten, Andersson, and He disclose every limitation of claim 27, as outlined above. Additionally, Wennersten discloses wherein the scaling factor is a power of 2 (Section 2.1 discloses scaling in multiples of 2).
Regarding claim 30, Wennersten and Andersson disclose all of the limitations of claim 29, as outlined above. Additionally, Wennersten discloses wherein the obtaining the weight further comprises: converting the one or more values obtained from the lookup table to corresponding one or more (Section 2.1, p. 3, “
w
r
i
,
a
=
0.4
∙
s
0
∙
s
r
i
,
a
∙
e
-
∆
I
i
2
2
∙
σ
I
Q
P
2
.” Note, the weight is
w
r
i
,
a
is a product of the scaling function
s
r
by the exponential function
e
).
Wennersten and Andersson fail to expressly disclose converting to one or more fixed point values.
However, He teaches converting to one or more fixed point values ([0124], “scaling factors w and o may be converted from floating point precision to integer precision or fixed point precision”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have converted factors to fixed point, as taught by He ([0124]), in Wennersten and Andersson’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wennersten and Andersson’s invention, by incorporating He’s invention, to simplify the encoding process and the computation process ([0124]).
Regarding claim 37, the limitations are the same as those in claim 27. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 27 apply equally as well to claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, the limitations are the same as those in claim 28. Therefore, the same limitations of claim 28 apply equally as well to claim 38.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,495 (hereinafter “Patent ‘495”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Patent ‘495. The instant application defines an exponential function as
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
, which is a standard well-known expression of an exponential function and therefore anticipated.
The table below exemplifies the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘495.
Instant Application
Patent ‘495
Claim 31. A method performed by a encoder, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A method performed by an encoder, the method comprising:
applying a temporal filter to a current picture, the applying comprising:
applying a temporal filter to a current picture, the applying comprising:
obtaining an exponential function having a form
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
in which the
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
is computed using a lookup table;
obtaining an exponential function, that includes an exponent with a numerator with at least one first factor and a denominator with at least one second factor, by computing the exponent of the exponential function as fixed-point values or by using at least one lookup table;
obtaining a weight of at least one neighboring picture by multiplying a scaling function with the exponential function;
obtaining a weight of at least one neighboring picture by multiplying a scaling function with the exponential function;
obtaining a filtered sample value of the current picture based on a sample value of the current picture and the weight of the at least one neighboring picture; and
obtaining a filtered sample value of the current picture based on a sample value of the current picture and the weight of the at least one neighboring picture; and
replacing the sample value of the current picture with the filtered sample value; and
replacing the sample value of the current picture with the filtered sample value; and
encoding the current picture after the temporal filter is applied.
encoding the current picture after the temporal filter is applied.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,746 (hereinafter “Patent ‘746”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Patent ‘746. The instant application defines an exponential function as
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
, which is a standard well-known expression of an exponential function and therefore anticipated. Additionally, Patent ‘746 describes the use of a lookup table in claim 5.
The table below exemplifies the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘746.
Instant Application
Patent ‘746
Claim 21. A method performed by decoder, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A method performed by a decoder, the method comprising:
receiving an encoded video bitstream comprising a current picture;
receiving an encoded video bitstream comprising a current picture;
decoding the encoded filter to a current picture, the applying comprising:
decoding the encoded current picture to generate a decoded picture;
applying a temporal filter to a current picture, the applying comprising:
applying a temporal filter to the decoded picture, the applying comprising:
obtaining an exponential function having a form
2
i
n
t
e
g
e
r
*
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
in which the
2
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
is computed using a lookup table;
obtaining an exponential function, that includes a numerator with one or more factors corresponding to a motion estimation error and a denominator associated with a quantization parameter;
obtaining a weight of at least one neighboring picture by multiplying a scaling function with the exponential function;
obtaining a weight of at least one neighboring picture by multiplying a scaling function with the exponential function;
obtaining a filtered sample value of the current picture based on a sample value of the current picture and the weight of the at least one neighboring picture; and
obtaining a filtered sample value of the current picture based on a sample value of the current picture and the weight of the at least one neighboring picture; and
replacing the sample value of the current picture with the filtered sample value; and
replacing the sample value of the current picture with the filtered sample value; and
reconstructing the decoded current picture after the temporal filter is applied.
reconstructing the decoded the current picture after the temporal filter is applied.
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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481