Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species.
Species I (Adaptive loop filtering with mapping based on band classification) of Figure 6. Claims 1-9 (method claim), and 10 (apparatus claim).
Species II (Adaptive loop filtering using combined classifies with mapping based on gradient classification) of Figure 7.
Claims 11-20 (method claim).
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there is no generic claim.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The species have mutually exclusive characteristics, where adaptive loop filtering based on band classifiers and adaptive loop filtering using derived classifiers based on gradient classifiers have respective features that are mutually exclusive.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During an electronic communication with Daniel McClure on 07/22/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I (Adaptive loop filtering with mapping based on band classification) of Figure 6. Claims 1-9 (method claim), and 10 (apparatus claim). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 (method claim) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 .
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/06/2025, in which claims 1-10 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz (US Pub. 20170324962 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021051369 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karczewicz discloses a method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) processing of reconstructed video, the method comprising (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. A system/method is used to perform ALF processing of reconstructed video.):
receiving reconstructed pixels, wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise current reconstructed pixels in a current block and the current block corresponds to a luma block (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. Reconstructed pixels are received, comprising current reconstructed pixels of a current blocks corresponding to a luma block, see also Para. [0059], wherein reconstructed pixels of a current block of luma component are used to obtain a metrics.);
determining a block value for an ALF classification block of the current block (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. A value of one or more metrics is determined for a sub-block as an ALF classification block of a current block.);
mapping the block value to a target block classification class (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. A class/target block classification class is determined/mapped to a sub-block of a current block.);
deriving a filtered output by applying a target filter to a current reconstructed pixel in the ALF classification block, wherein the target filter is selected from a set of ALFs according to the target block classification class (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. A target filter mapped to a reconstructed pixels of a sub-block is determined from a set of filters in accordance with the sub-block, and reconstructed pixels of a sub-block are filtered to determine filtered output.); and
providing filtered-reconstructed pixels, wherein the filtered-reconstructed pixels comprise the filtered output (Karczewicz; Para. [0136-137]. Reconstructed pixels are filtered to provide filtered output.), but mapping the block value to a target block classification class using a lookup table.
However, Ma teaches mapping the block value to a target block classification class using a lookup table (Ma; Para. [0043]. A block value, e.g. classification value, is mapped to a target block classification class, e.g. filter block classification, using a mapping table.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Karczewicz to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Ma’s teaching wherein a mapping table is used to map between a block value and a block classification value, for the motivation to perform loop filtering in video codecs (Ma; Para. [0002].).
Regarding claim 6, modified Karczewicz further teaches the mapping between the block value and the lookup table is pre-defined (Ma; Para. [0043]. A block value, e.g. classification value, is mapped to a target block classification class, e.g. filter block classification, using a mapping table, which is preset).
Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) processing of reconstructed video, the apparatus comprising one or more electronic circuits or processors arranged to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claim in claim 1, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz (US Pub. 20170324962 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021051369 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (WO 2024015670 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Karczewicz teaches the block value (Karczewicz; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the block value corresponds to a sum of current reconstructed pixels in the ALF classification block, or the block value corresponds to a median of current reconstructed pixels in the ALF classification block.
However, Chen teaches the block value corresponds to a sum of current reconstructed pixels in the ALF classification block, or the block value corresponds to a median of current reconstructed pixels in the ALF classification block (Chen; Para. [0086]. A sum of sample values of reconstructed luma block is used to determine a block value for an ALF classification block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Karczewicz to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Chen’s teaching wherein a metrics such as block sum is used to perform classification, for the motivation to perform adaptive filtering for respective blocks (Chen; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Karczewicz teaches the block value corresponds to a selected sample value of current reconstructed pixels in the ALF classification block (Chen; Para. [0086]. A sum of sample values of reconstructed luma block correspond to the samples including at least a selected sample value.).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz (US Pub. 20170324962 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021051369), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (WO 2020182092 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Karczewicz teaches the lookup table (Karczewicz; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but a number of entries for the lookup table correspond to 2 to a power of N, where N is a positive integer.
However, Zhang teaches a number of entries for the lookup table correspond to 2 to a power of N, where N is a positive integer (Zhang; Para. [0136-138]. A number of entries, i.e. 1024, corresponds to 2 to a power of 10.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Karczewicz to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Zhang’s teaching wherein a LUT is employed for in-loop filtering, for the motivation to perform block-based in-loop filtering (Zhang; Para. [0006].).
Regarding claim 7, modified Karczewicz teaches the mapping between the block value and the lookup table is determined adaptively (Zhang; Para. [0142]. The mapping is calculated on-the-fly between the LUT and the block value.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz (US Pub. 20170324962 A1) in view of Ma (WO 2021051369), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chong (US 20120213293 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Karczewicz teaches the mapping between the block value and the lookup table (Karczewicz; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the mapping between the block value and the lookup table is non-uniform.
However, Chong teaches the mapping between the block value and the lookup table is non-uniform (Chong; Para. [0043-44]. Different combination of metric inputs are not mapped to a unique filters, and thus the mapping is non-uniform.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the video coding system of modified Karczewicz to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating Chong’s teaching wherein non-uniform mapping is allowed between input metrics and lookup table, for the motivation to perform multi-metric filtering (Chong; Abstract.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma (US Pub. 20250240460 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs adaptive loop filtering based on different classifiers.
Ma (US Pub. 20250203075 A1) teaches a video coding system that uses multi-source based extended taps for adaptive loop filtering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights