DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a decoder coupled to the memory in claims 1-7, a decoder in claims 17-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: computer, a tablet PC, a PDA, a mobile communication device, a web appliance, a set-top box (STB), an embedded system and/or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CA 2729771 A1 WATANABE TAKASHI et al. (hereafter Watanabe), and further in view of US 20080193024 A1 Lee; Suh-Ho et al. (hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses A system (Fig.11) comprising: a memory configured to store image data (P.14th, Lines 14-27); and a decoder coupled to the memory and configured to(Fig.11, P.14th, Lines 14-27): apply a luma deblocking filter to the image data using a first set of filter coefficients (Fig.12, P.22nd line 27-P.23rd line 6, P.14th lines 3-4); and apply a chroma deblocking filter to the image data using a second set of filter coefficients (Fig.12, P.22nd line 27-P.23rd line 6, P.14th lines 6-10).
Watanabe fails to disclose the second set of filter coefficients includes a subset of the first set of filter coefficients.
However, Lee teaches wherein the second set of filter coefficients includes a subset of the first set of filter coefficients (Figs.4, [14], [46], the filtering (e.g. circled point) on luminance components for MB of Fig,4A taking place more than on chrominance components of Fig.4B indicates the number of filtering coefficients for luminance components is more than that of the chrominance components, and both filtering coefficients are sharing at least for some of components, meaning at least part of or subset of filtering coefficients for luminance components are used as filtering coefficients for chrominance components ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Lee, in order to provide a deblock filter capable of reducing hardware complexity in a system for processing image signals, as identified by Lee.
Regarding claims 6, 14, Lee teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the decoder is configured to apply the chroma deblocking filter to an edge in the image data between a first inter-predicted block and a second inter-predicted block ([46], [53]).
Regarding claims 7, 15, Lee teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising a display, wherein the decoder is configured to produce filtered image data using the luma deblocking filter and the chroma deblocking filter, and wherein the display is configured to present a video based on the filtered image data ([81], [91]).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection for claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Lee, and further in view of US 20100202262 A1 Adams; Dale Richard et al. (hereafter Adams).
Regarding claims 2, 10, Watanabe discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of filter coefficients includes a first coefficient (Fig.10), and Lee teaches wherein the decoder is configured to apply the luma deblocking filter to an edge between a first block and a second block in the image data by ([23]-[24]): Adams teaches subtracting a first luma sample in the first block from a second luma sample in the second block to produce a first luma difference value; and multiplying the first coefficient by the first luma difference value ([35], [289]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill Adams in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to having all the references Watanabe, Lee and Adams before him/her, to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Lee and Adams, in order to provide a deblock filter capable of reducing hardware complexity in a system for processing image signals, as identified by Lee, and systems and methods for block noise detection and filtering, as identified by Adams.
Regarding claims 3, 11, Adams teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to apply the chroma deblocking filter to the edge by: subtracting a first chroma sample in the first block from a second chroma sample in the second block to produce a first chroma difference value; and multiplying the first coefficient by the first chroma difference value ([290]-[292], [301]).
Regarding claims 4, 12, Adams teaches The system of claim 3, wherein the first set of filter coefficients includes a second coefficient, and wherein the decoder is configured to apply the luma deblocking filter to the edge by: subtracting a third luma sample in the first block from a fourth luma sample in the second block to produce a second luma difference value; and multiplying the second coefficient by the second luma difference value ( [287], [290]-[292]).
Regarding claims 5, 13, Adams teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the decoder is configured to apply the chroma deblocking filter to the edge by: subtracting a third chroma sample in the first block from a fourth chroma sample in the second block to produce a second chroma difference value; and multiplying the second coefficient by the second chroma difference value( [290]-[292], [301]).
Regarding claims 8, 16, Adams teaches The system of claim 7, wherein the display includes a liquid crystal display configured to present the video ([329]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Lee, and further in view of US 20090002379 A1 Baeza; Juan Carlos et al. (hereafter Baeza).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection for claim 1. And Baeza teaches a display coupled to the decoder and configured to present a video based on the luma filtered data and the chroma filtered data ([169], [667]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill Adams in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to having all the references Watanabe, Lee and Baeza before him/her, to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Lee and Baeza, in order to provide a deblock filter capable of reducing hardware complexity in a system for processing image signals, as identified by Lee, and systems and to increase decoding speed to facilitate real time decoding, or to reduce computational complexity in scenarios such as those with processing power constraints and/or delay constraints, as identified by Baeza.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections for claims 2, 3.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections for claims 4, 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20110274158 A1, AU 2011239142 B2, JP 2014099672 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487