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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 7/22/26 regarding application 18/904036 that was initially filed on 10/1/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/22/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16 - 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shankar et al., US 2009/0016442 A1 (hereinafter Shankar).
As for claim 1, Shankar discloses a computer-implemented method for reducing banding artifacts in decoded video data, the method comprising: performing a set of transform operations ([0006], e.g., inverse transformed) on a first block ([0047], e.g., blocks, note a first block) of coefficients ([0006], e.g., transformed, note the input to the transformer) associated with a frame of encoded video data ([0005], e.g., video) to generate a first block of samples ([0006], e.g., transformed, note the output from the transformer for the first block); determining that a first sample included in the first block of samples meets a first criterion ([0032], e.g., predefined criteria and/or [0044], e.g., smoothness condition); computing ([0032], e.g., randomly selected, note the “computing” has a broad definition in a dictionary such as “to determine or calculate by means of a computer” and “to use a computer” which covers selection process.) a first randomized ([0032], e.g., randomly) value ([0032], e.g., another pixel) based on a first value ([0032], e.g., a region R defined with reference to the pixel, note the location of the pixel as attribute, note the first value is the location value) of at least one attribute ([0032], e.g., a region R defined with reference to the pixel, note the location of the pixel as attribute) of the first sample, wherein the first randomized value is different ([0032], e.g., a region R defined with reference to the pixel, note difference between the location of the pixel as attribute and another pixel value, note the location value and the pixel value are different) than the first value of the at least one attribute of the first sample; modifying ([0032], e.g., replaced) a first sample value associated with the first sample based on the first randomized value to generate a first dithered sample value; and generating a first portion of decoded video data ([0032], e.g., replaced, note the replaced output) based on the first dithered sample value.
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Shankar further discloses the first block of coefficients corresponds to a residual frame of sample values that is represented in the frequency domain ([0006], e.g., inverse transformed, note the frequency domain before the inverse transform), and the first block of samples corresponds to a reconstructed version of the residual frame of sample values that is represented in the spatial domain ([0006], e.g., inverse transformed, note the spatial domain after the inverse transform).
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Shankar further discloses performing the set of transform operations on a second block of coefficients to generate a second block of samples ([0047], e.g., blocks, note a second block); determining that a second sample included in the second block of samples does not meet the first criterion ([0032], e.g., predefined criteria and/or [0044], e.g., smoothness condition); and generating a second portion of decoded video data based on a second sample value associated with the second sample ([0006], e.g., transformed, note the output from the transformer for the second block).
As for claim 11, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 13, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 3, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 16, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 9, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 17, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 10, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 18, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 11. In addition, Shankar further discloses a bit depth associated with the first dithered sample value corresponds to a bit depth associated with the first portion of decoded video data ([0032], e.g., the pixel is replaced by another pixel, note the same bit depths).
As for claim 20, the claim recites a system of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claims 2, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar in view of Misra et al., US 2021/0105506 A1 (hereinafter Misra).
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Shankar does not explicitly disclose, but Misra teaches performing the set of transform operations comprises: performing a row-based inverse transform operation on the first block of coefficients to generate a row-transformed portion of a residual frame of sample values ([0450], e.g., horizontal transform followed by); and performing a column-based inverse transform operation on the row-transformed portion of the residual frame of sample values to generate a reconstructed version of the residual frame of sample values that includes the first block of samples ([0450], e.g., vertical transform).
Therefore, given the teachings 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, having the references of Shankar and Misra before him/her to modify the doblocking digital images of Shankar with the teaching of systems and methods for applying deblocking filters to reconstructed video data of Misra with a motivation to provide a simple calculation of the transform by using the row-based and column-based transform.
As for claim 12, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 19, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 11.
Shankar does not explicitly disclose, but Misra teaches the set of transform operations includes at least one inverse discrete cosine transform operation ([0450], e.g., DCT and inverse transform).
Therefore, given the teachings 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, having the references of Shankar and Misra before him/her to modify the doblocking digital images of Shankar with the teaching of systems and methods for applying deblocking filters to reconstructed video data of Misra with a motivation to provide a simple calculation of the transform by using the row-based and column-based transform.
3. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankar in view of Masaaki, JP H08181617 A (hereinafter Masaaki).
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Shankar does not explicitly disclose, but Masaaki teaches modifying the first sample value comprises: adding the first randomized value to the first sample value to generate a first randomized sample value (p. 5, e.g., added to the lower 8 bits); and performing a bit shift operation on the first randomized sample value to generate the first dithered sample value (p. 5, e.g., 2 bits are shifted to the lower side).
Therefore, given the teachings 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, having the references of Shankar and Masaaki before him/her to modify the doblocking digital images of Shankar with the teaching of digital signal transmitter of Masaaki with a motivation to provide a quick and/or easy implementation of the dithering by using the random data and shift operation.
As for claim 15, the claim recites an one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions of the method of claim 8, and is similarly analyzed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Shankar does not disclose that the second component value of the second pixel is computed based on a first value of a first location of the first pixel even though Shankar’s value is generated prior to the processing of the first value. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, the definition of “computing” is broad including “to determine or calculate by means of a computer” and “to use a computer” which covers selection process disclosed in Shankar. It appears that Applicant’s intention is produce a value that is different from an existing pixel value and it that is included in the claim language, it would overcome the current rejection. Note that the limitation of “wherein the first randomized value is different than the first value of the at least one attribute of the first sample” is different from producing a value that is different from an existing pixel value because the comparison is between a location and pixel value in the current claim mapping, not between two pixel values.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9, and 14 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
