DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the amended claim(s) 1 and 11 have been fully considered and moot in view of new grounds of rejection by relying on the teachings of WO 2020/007747 A1 (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”), and (US 20230276072 A1) (SATO KAZUSHI [JP]) in view of (US 20130113884 A1) LEONTARIS ET AL (hereafter “LEONTARIS”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/007747 A1 (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”).
Regarding claim 1, ERICSSON discloses a computer-implemented method for reducing banding artifacts in decoded video data (ERICSSON: see figure 12 and lines 5-13 of page 18, for one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors, to reduce banding artifacts in decoded video data; ERICSSON: see figure 13, lines 6-15 of page 9 and lines 14-23 of page 18; features for reducing banding artifacts cannot be seen as limiting the claim, see EPO-PCT GL F-IV.4.13 and EPO GL F-IV.4.13.3, last paragraph), the method comprising:
receiving a first set of reference samples via a compressed bitstream (ERICSSON: see from line 16 of page 9 to line 2 of page 10; see also figure);
determining that the first set of reference samples meets a first criterion; (ERICSSON: see lines 2-4 of page 10, lines 19-21 and 25-26 of page 11, and lines 3-18 of page 14 with figures 8A/8B, where conditions of figures 8B rely on the reference samples),
selecting a first filter corresponding to the first criterion; (ERICSSON: see lines 2-4 of page 10, lines 19-21 and 25-26 of page 11, and embodiment 1 on pages 13-14, in particular lines 3-18 of page 14 with figures 8a/8b, where conditions of figures Sb rely on the reference samples);
wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions; (ERICSSON: see lines 12-29, page 4, selecting a first deblocking filter, a second deblocking filter, and a third deblocking filter),
wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a deblocking function; (ERICSSON: see lines 12-29 of page 4),
applying the first filter to the first set of reference samples to generate a first set of filtered samples; (ERICSSON: see figure Sa);
performing at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the first set of filtered samples to generate a first set of predicted samples (ERICSSON; see lines 6-8 of page 9); and
generating a first portion of decoded video data based on the first set of predicted samples (ERICSSON: implicit. Note: ERICSSON: lines 16-21 of page 9, for a method for video encoding or decoding in which the boundaries in reference samples of intra-predicted CUs are filtered by an intra-reference sample deblocking filter).
It is noted that ERICSSON does not teach wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function and a constraint function.
Zhao teaches wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function and a constraint function (ZHAO: paragraph [0163] the Wiener filter can be used as one of the switchable filters to perform a straightforward linear minimum mean square error (LMMSE) optimization as linear function and each of the horizontal and vertical filters are constrained to be symmetric as a constraint function, paragraph [0133] a linear function, paragraph [0156] a constraint function).
Taking the teachings of ERICSSON and ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linear function and constraint function of Zhao into the selection of the plurality of filters of ERICSSON for improving decoded video quality in different aspects ([0081] of ZHAO).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, ERICSSON discloses a system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (ERICSSON: see figure 12 and lines 5-13 of page 18) to reduce banding artifacts in decoded video data (ERICSSON: see figure 13, lines 6-15 of page 9 and lines 14-23 of page 18; features for reducing banding artifacts cannot be seen as limiting the claim, see EPO-PCT GL F-IV.4.13 and EPO GL F-IV.4.13.3, last paragraph) by performing the steps of:
receiving a first set of reference samples via a compressed bitstream (ERICSSON: see from line 16 of page 9 to line 2 of page 10; see also figure);
determining that the first set of reference samples meets a first criterion; (ERICSSON: see lines 2-4 of page 10, lines 19-21 and 25-26 of page 11, and lines 3-18 of page 14 with figures 8a/8b, where conditions of figures 8a/8b rely on the reference samples);
selecting a first filter corresponding to the first criterion; (ERICSSON: see lines 2-4 of page 10, lines 19-21 and 25-26 of page 11, and embodiment 1 on pages 13-14, in particular lines 3-18 of page 14 with figures 8a/8b, where conditions of figures 8b rely on the reference samples));
wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions (ERICSSON: see lines 12-29, page 4, selecting a first deblocking filter, a second deblocking filter, and a third deblocking filter), wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a deblocking function (ERICSSON: see lines 12-29 of page 4, deblocking functions);
applying the first filter to the first set of reference samples to generate a first set of filtered samples; (ERICSSON: see figure 8a);
performing at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the first set of filtered samples to generate a first set of predicted samples; and (ERICSSON; see lines 6-8 of page 9);
generating a first portion of decoded video data based on the first set of predicted samples (ERICSSON: implicit. Note: ERICSSON: lines 16-21 of page 9, for a method for video encoding or decoding in which the boundaries in reference samples of intra-predicted CUs are filtered by an intra-reference sample deblocking filter).
It is noted that ERICSSON does not teach wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function and a constraint function.
Zhao teaches wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function and a constraint function (ZHAO: paragraph [0163] the Wiener filter can be used as one of the switchable filters to perform a straightforward linear minimum mean square error (LMMSE) optimization as linear function and each of the horizontal and vertical filters are constrained to be symmetric as a constraint function; paragraph [0133] a linear function; paragraph [0156] a constraint function).
Taking the teachings of ERICSSON and ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linear function and constraint function of Zhao into the selection of the plurality of filters of ERICSSON for improving decoded video quality in different aspects ([0081] of ZHAO).
Regarding claims 2, 12, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first set of reference samples meets the first criterion comprises: generating a metric based on a set of dimensions associated with a sample block that includes the first set of reference samples; and determining that the metric is greater than a threshold value (ERICSSON; see lines 21-28 of page 16 where filtering is applied for blocks larger than a certain size, i.e. the criterion is combination of the width and height compared to a threshold).
Regarding claims 3, 13, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first set of reference samples meets the first criterion comprises: computing an absolute difference value based on a first sample value associated with a first sample included in the first set of reference samples and a second sample value associated with a second sample included in the first set of reference samples; and determining that the absolute difference value is less than a threshold value (ERICSSON: see criterion 3 in figure 8b).
Regarding claim 5, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first filter comprises a low-pass filter (ERICSSON: see lines 24-27 of page 14).
Regarding claims 7, 17, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first filter comprises a deblocking filter that implements a first set of parameters corresponding to the first criterion (ERICSSON: see embodiment 1 on pages 13-14 where a deblocking titer is applied).
Regarding claim 15, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the first filter comprises a linear filter that implements a first filter kernel corresponding to the first criterion (ERICSSON: see analysis in claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, ERICSSON and ZHAO disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising the steps of: receiving a second set of reference samples via the compressed bitstream (ERICSSON: line 34 of page 1 to line 6 of page 2, two reference samples in a left-most column of the current CU, two reference samples in a top-row of the current CU); determining that the second set of reference samples meets a second criterion (ERICSSON: lines 10-13 of page 2, 132 and 134 and 138 of figure 8A); selecting a second filter corresponding to the second criterion (ERICSSON: lines 19-25 of page 2, 136 of fig. 8A, If all of the conditions represented by equations 4, 5, and 6 are true, a 7-tap filter is applied (box 138); applying the second filter to the second set of reference samples to generate a second set of filtered samples (ERICSSON: 136 and 140 of figure 8A, ERICSSON: line 34 of page 12 to line 4 of page 13, a second filtering operation); performing the at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the second set of filtered samples to generate a second set of predicted samples (ERICSSON: lines 1-4 of page 6); and generating a second portion of decoded video data based on the second set of predicted samples (ERICSSON: lines 1-4 of page 6 and lines 16-21 of page 9, for a method for video encoding or decoding in which the boundaries in reference samples of intra-predicted CUs are filtered by an intra-reference sample deblocking filter).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2020/007747 A1) (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) in view of ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”), as apply to claim 1, and further in view of (US 20170034536 A1) (FILIPPOV ALEXEY KONSTANTINOVICH [RU] ET AL) 2 February 2017 (2017-02-02) (hereafter “Filipov”)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, ERICSSON and ZHAO teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, ERICSSON and ZHAO do not teach wherein determining that the first set of reference samples meets the first criterion comprises determining that at least a subset of reference samples included in the first set of reference samples resides adjacent to a block boundary associated with a sample block that includes the first set of reference samples.
Filipov teaches wherein determining that the first set of reference samples meets the first criterion comprises determining that at least a subset of reference samples included in the first set of reference samples resides adjacent to a block boundary associated with a sample block that includes the first set of reference samples (Filipov: see paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0119], and [0130]).
Taking the teachings of Filipov, ERICSSON, ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subset of reference samples of Filipov into the filtering process of ERICSSON in view of ZHAO for improved prediction techniques, e.g. block-prediction using intra- or inter-prediction, which use pre-prediction filtering techniques to reduce noise influence on the predicted samples of a block to be reconstructed (see [0021] of Filipov).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2020/007747 A1) (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) in view of ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of (US 20220279176 A1) Sarwer et al. (hereafter “Sarwer”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, ERICSSON and ZHAO teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, ERICSSON and ZHAO do not teach wherein the first filter comprises an adaptive filter that implements a first constraint function corresponding to the first criterion.
Sarwer teaches wherein the first filter comprises an adaptive filter that implements a first constraint function corresponding to the first criterion (Sarwer: see paragraphs [0019, 0102, and 0103] for loop filtering module 515, employing one or more of deblocking, constraint directional enhancement filter (CDEF), and loop restoration filter, etc., may be applied to the reconstructed blocks to form the reconstructed block after loop filtering, which is stored in the decoded picture buffer, and used to provide reference samples for inter prediction).
Taking the teachings of Sarwer, ERICSSON, ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the constraint function of Sarwer into the filter of ERICSSON in view of ZHAO to reduce or eliminate distortion (e.g., blocking artifacts) introduced during coding of the prediction reference (see [0084] of Sarwer).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2020/007747 A1) (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) in view of ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JIN XIN ET AL: "Depth dithering based on texture edge-assisted classification", SIGNAL PROCESSING. IMAGE COMMUNICATION, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 47, 10 May 2016 (2016-05-10), pages 56-71, XP029753288, ISSN: 0923-5965, DOI: 10.1016/J.IMAGE.2016.05.006 (hereafter “Jin”)
Regarding claims 8 and 10, ERICSSON and ZHAO teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, ERICSSON and ZHAO do not teach wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value by replicating a first sample in the first set of reference samples and wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value based on at least two reference samples included in the first set of reference samples.
Jin teaches wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value by replicating a first sample in the first set of reference samples and wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value based on at least two reference samples included in the first set of reference samples (Note: padding missing elements using several known elements is known from Jin, see lines 1-4 of 5th paragraph of section 1 of Jin).
Taking the teachings of Jin, ERICSSON, and ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the padding techniques of Jin into the filter of ERICSSON in view of ZHAO to reduce the blurring effect near object boundaries (see 5th paragraph of Jin).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2020/007747 A1) (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) in view of ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of (US 20130101016 A1) (CHONG IN SUK [US] ET AL) 25 April 2013 (2013-04-25) (hereafter “Chong”).
Regarding claim 9, ERICSSON and ZHAO teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, ERICSSON and ZHAO do not teach wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value by mirroring a first sample included in the first set of reference samples across a block boundary associated with a sample block that includes the first set of reference samples.
Chong teaches wherein the first filter, during operation, generates a first padding value by mirroring a first sample included in the first set of reference samples across a block boundary associated with a sample block that includes the first set of reference samples (see e.g. paragraph [0099] of Chong where a padding operation is done either by replicating or by mirroring).
Taking the teachings of Chong, ERICSSON, and ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirrored padding techniques of Chong into the filter of ERICSSON in view of ZHAO to reduce blockiness or other artifacts common to block-based video coding (see [0042] of Chong).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2020/007747 A1) (ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M [SE]) 9 January 2020 (2020-01-09) (hereafter “ERICSSON”) in view of (US 20240283926 A1) in view of ZHAO ET AL. (hereafter “ZHAO”) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of (EP 0 509 576 A2) (AMPEX [US]) 21 October 1992 (1992-10-21) (hereafter “Ampex”).
Regarding claim 18, ERICSSON and ZHAO teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, ERICSSON does not teach the step of performing a randomized dithering operation on a first predicted sample value associated with a first predicted sample included in the first set of predicted samples by: adding a randomized value to the first predicted sample value to generate a first randomized sample value; and generating a first output sample value by performing a rounding operation with the first randomized sample value.
Ampex teaches the step of performing a randomized dithering operation on a first predicted sample value associated with a first predicted sample included in the first set of predicted samples by: adding a randomized value to the first predicted sample value to generate a first randomized sample value (Ampex: 62-64 of figure 7); and generating a first output sample value by performing a rounding operation with the first randomized sample value (Ampex: 65 of figure 7, the selector 65 switches in the dither rounding portion of the circuit only for coefficient values above the threshold which may be of the order of, for example, +_1 through +_3. Note: it is known to apply dithering by adding a random values and by rounding in order to remove banding artefacts, see figures 7 and 8 are functional block diagrams illustrating dither rounding and recovery for compression and decompression processes, respectively, in accordance with the invention and from line 42 of page 13 to line 4 of page 14 of Ampex).
Taking the teachings of Ampex, ERICSSON, and ZHAO together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the randomized dithering operations of Ampex into the filter of ERICSSON in view of ZHAO to reduce the relative root mean squared (RMS) errors for an image of varying complexity.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 15, are 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 20230276072 A1) (SATO KAZUSHI [JP]) 31 August 2023 (2023-08-31) (hereafter “Sato”) in view of (US 20130113884 A1) LEONTARIS ET AL. (hereafter “LEONTARIS”).
Regarding claim 1, SATO discloses a computer-implemented method for reducing banding artifacts in decoded video data (SATO: see figure 46 and paragraphs [0597]-[0614] One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors, to reduce banding artifacts in decoded video data; SATO: see figures 7-8 and paragraphs [0135], [0141], [0144] together with figures 23 and 28 and paragraph [0409] where banding is reduced/suppressed at the decoder), the method comprising:
receiving a first set of reference samples via a compressed bitstream (SATO: see figure 23 where a bitstream is received and see step S372 of figure 28 with paragraph [0498]. see also figure 24 where the filter determination unit 322 of figure 24 comprises a neighbouring pixel determination unit 342);
determining that the first set of reference samples meets a first criterion; (SATO: see paragraph [0405] where the formulas (3) and (4) of paragraphs [0143]-[0144] applied to identify features of the neighbouring blocks, in particular by checking whether a criterion on a threshold and pixel values is meet, see also step S372 of figure 28 and paragraph [0468]),
selecting a first filter corresponding to the first criterion; (SATO: see paragraphs [0143]-[0144], [0405]-[0407] and step S373 in figure 28 with paragraph [0469]);
applying the first filter to the first set of reference samples to generate a first set of filtered samples; (SATO: see paragraph [0408] and step S374 in figure 28 with paragraph [0470]);
performing at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the first set of filtered samples to generate a first set of predicted samples; and (SATO: see paragraph [0408] and step 375 in figure 28 with paragraph [0472]);
generating a first portion of decoded video data based on the first set of predicted samples. (SATO: implicit; ERICSSON: implicit).
SATO does not teach wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions, wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function, a constraint function, and a deblocking function
LEONTARIS teaches wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions (LEONTARIS: paragraph [0100] (a) Switching on and off the processing operations for the designated region. (b) Controlling the types of filters used during processing (low- or high-pass, Lanczos, bilinear, filter direction, etc.)), wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function, a constraint function, and a deblocking function (LEONTARIS: paragraph [0116]).
Taking the teachings of SATO and LEONTARIS together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of filters and filtering functions of LEONTARIS into the filter of SATO to suppress these artifacts and improve coding efficiency ([0070] of LEONTARIS).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, SATO discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (SATO: see figure 46 and paragraphs [0597]-[0614]) to reduce banding artifacts in decoded video data (SATO: see figures 7-8 and paragraphs [0135], [0141], [0144]together with figures 23 and 28 and paragraph [0409] where banding is reduced/suppressed at the decoder) by performing the steps of:
receiving a first set of reference samples via a compressed bitstream (SATO: see figure 23 where a bitstream is received and see step S372 of figure 28 with paragraph [0498]. see also figure 24 where the filter determination unit 322 of figure 24 comprises a neighbouring pixel determination unit 342);
determining that the first set of reference samples meets a first criterion; (SATO: see paragraph [0405] where the formulas (3) and (4) of paragraphs [0143]-[0144] applied to identify features of the neighbouring blocks, in particular by checking whether a criterion on a threshold and pixel values is meet, see also step S372 of figure 28 and paragraph [0468]);
selecting a first filter corresponding to the first criterion; (SATO: see paragraphs [0143]-[0144], [0405]-[0407] and step S373 in figure 28 with paragraph [0469]);
applying the first filter to the first set of reference samples to generate a first set of filtered samples; (SATO: see paragraph [0408] and step S374 in figure 28 with paragraph [0470]);
performing at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the first set of filtered samples to generate a first set of predicted samples; and (SATO: see paragraph [0408] and step 375 in figure 28 with paragraph [0472]);
generating a first portion of decoded video data based on the first set of predicted samples (SATO: implicit. Note: SATO: 305 of fig. 23 for generating the decoded video data, see paragraph [0376]).
SATO does not teach wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions, wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function, a constraint function, and a deblocking function
LEONTARIS teaches wherein the first filter is selected from a plurality of filters that perform a plurality of different types of functions (LEONTARIS: paragraph [0100] (a) Switching on and off the processing operations for the designated region. (b) Controlling the types of filters used during processing (low- or high-pass, Lanczos, bilinear, filter direction, etc.), wherein the plurality of different types of functions includes a linear function, a constraint function, and a deblocking function (LEONTARIS: paragraph [0116]).
Taking the teachings of SATO and LEONTARIS together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the selection of filters and filtering functions of LEONTARIS into the filter of SATO to suppress these artifacts and improve coding efficiency ([0070] of LEONTARIS).
Regarding claim 5, SATO and LEONTARIS disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, SATO further discloses wherein the first filter comprises a low-pass filter (SATO: see paragraph [0270]).
Regarding claim 15, SATO and LEONTARIS disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, SATO further discloses wherein the first filter comprises a linear filter that implements a first filter kernel corresponding to the first criterion. (SATO: the bi-linear filter of paragraph [0407] is linear, and so is the low pass filter of paragraph [0406], see figure 5 and paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 19, SATO and LEONTARIS disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, SATO further discloses the steps of: receiving a second set of reference samples via the compressed bitstream (SATO: 310 of fig. 24, neighboring pixels as a second set of reference samples); determining that the second set of reference samples meets a second criterion (SATO: 342 of figure 24, neighboring pixel determination); selecting a second filter corresponding to the second criterion (SATO: 343 of figure 24); applying the second filter to the second set of reference samples to generate a second set of filtered samples (SATO: 344-345 of figure 24); performing the at least one intra-prediction decoding operation on the second set of filtered samples to generate a second set of predicted samples (SATO: 310 of figure 23, intra-prediction); and generating a second portion of decoded video data based on the second set of predicted samples (SATO: see the two conditions in formulas (3) and (4) in paragraph [0143]-[0148], the decoding process performs on a second set of reference samples, 305 of figure 23 for generating the second portion of decoded video data).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG T VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7340. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 AM - 5:00 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
TUNG T. VO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/TUNG T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425