CTFR 18/950,554 CTFR 87350 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Examiner Remarks The English translation of WO 2011074357 A1 is attached in this Office Action. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-fti 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. 07-23-fti 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CA 2729771 A1 WATANABE TAKASHI et al. (hereafter Watanabe), in view of WO 2011074357 A1 IKAI, TOMOHIRO et al. (hereafter Ikai), 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.14 th , Lines 14-27); and a decoder coupled to the memory and configured to (Fig.11, P.14 th , Lines 14-27): and apply a chroma deblocking filter to the image data using a second set of filter coefficients (Fig.12, P.22 nd line 27-P.23 rd line 6, P.14 th lines 6-10). Watanabe fails to disclose apply a strong luma deblocking filter to a first portion of the image data; apply a weak luma deblocking filter to a second portion of the image data using a first set of filter coefficients; apply a weak luma deblocking filter to a second portion of the image data using a first set of filter coefficients; the second set of filter coefficients includes a subset of the first set of filter coefficients. However, Ikai teaches apply a strong luma deblocking filter to a first portion of the image data (P.37 para.1 st , the portion of a target region where luminance value are low is the first portion of the image to be applied a strong filter); apply a weak luma deblocking filter to a second portion of the image data using a first set of filter coefficients (P.36 para.2 nd , P.37 para.1 st , the first set of filter coefficients of a luminance filter is determined according to average luminance in the region); 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 Adams in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to having all the references Watanabe, Ikai, and Lee before him/her, to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Ikai and Lee, in order to provide a filter called ALF (Adaptive Loop Filter) with filter coefficient that minimizes an error between the decoded image to which the ALF is applied and the original image, as identified by Ikai, and 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. Regarding claim 18, see the rejection for claim 6. Regarding claims 21, 22, The system of claim 1, wherein the decoder is configured to apply the strong luma deblocking filter to the image data using a third set of filter coefficients, and wherein the second set of filter coefficients does not include a subset of the third set of filter coefficients (P,65 para.1 st -para,4 th ) . 07-21-fti Claim s 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Ikai and 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, Ikai, Lee and Adams before him/her, to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Ikai , Lee and Adams, in order to p provide a filter called ALF (Adaptive Loop Filter) with filter coefficient that minimizes an error between the decoded image to which the ALF is applied and the original image, as identified by Ikai, and 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]). Regarding claim 19, see the rejections for claims 2, 3. Regarding claim 20, see the rejections for claims 4, 5 . 07-21-fti Claim s 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe, in view of Ikai and 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, ikai, Lee and Baeza before him/her, to modify the system disclosed by Watanabe to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Ikai, Lee and Baeza, in order to provide a filter called ALF (Adaptive Loop Filter) with filter coefficient that minimizes an error between the decoded image to which the ALF is applied and the original image, as identified by Ikai, 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. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 6 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/950,554 Page 8 Art Unit: 2487
Prosecution Insights