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 Amendment
Applicant's argument, filed on March 08, 2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application, claims 11 and 12 having been added.
A terminal disclaimer has been filed to overcome nonstatutory double patenting.
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding claim 1, on pages 5-7 applicant argues "Chen fail to disclose does not describe circuitry configured to decode a bitstream including an APS in which a maximum number of APS IDs referenced as an adaptive loop filter ALF is defined as a (fixed value for each aps params type specifying a type of APS to generate a decoded image" as claimed in amended claim 1. While the applicant's argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Chen discloses [para 0025]- an adaptation parameter set (APS) data structure that signals various parameters, such as ALF coefficients and SAO parameters, for one or more slices of video data. That is, an APS data structure may apply to a single slice, or may apply to a plurality of slices. A slice may use multiple APSs, and an APS may apply to more than one slice. Each APS includes an identifier (ID) value, and a slice may indicate that an APS applies to the slice by signaling the ID for the APS. The ID value for an APS may uniquely identify the APS for the corresponding bitstream).
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2013/0022104 A1) in view of Hu et al.(US 2020/0314424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an image processing device([see in Fig. 1]- FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example video encoding and decoding system that may utilize techniques for utilizing adaptation parameter set (APS) data structures), comprising: circuitry configured to decode a bitstream including an adaptation parameter set (APS) in which a maximum number of APS IDs referenced as an adaptive loop filter (ALF) is defined as a fixed value for each aps_params type specifying a type of APS to generate a decoded image([see in Fig. 6 and para 0138; 0140 and 0057]-in Fig. 6 illustrated video decoder 30 may receive data for APS 260, and the slice. Based on the APS ID value of the slice, referring to APS 260, video decoder 30 may decode the slice using data of APS 260. When performing adaptive loop filtering, video decoder 30 may determine that ALF coefficient identifier 262 of APS 260 refers to ALF coefficients 252. Accordingly, video decoder 30 may retrieve ALF coefficients 252 of APS 250 to perform adaptive loop filtering for the slice. When performing sample adaptive offsets, video decoder 30 may retrieve data from SAO parameters 264 of APS 260; [para 0057; 0082]-discloses APS IDs may be assigned based on importance, e.g., where lower-valued APS ID values are considered more important than higher-valued APS ID values. In other words, if the number of APSs exceeds the indicated maximum number, the APSs with the highest APS ID values may be removed, until the number of stored APSs reaches the maximum number. Alternatively, APS ID values that are lower valued may be considered less important than higher-valued APS ID values).
However, Chen does not exclusively disclose perform the ALF on the decoded image using the APS corresponding to an APS ID that is set by the circuitry.
In an analogous art, Hu discloses perform the ALF on the decoded image using the APS corresponding to an APS ID that is set by the circuitry([para 0007]- where two adaptive loop filters - one for the luma blocks and the other for the chroma blocks are used for decoding blocks of a picture, a tile or a tile group). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Wang with Hu with the motivation to devise a method and apparatus for decoding video data including decoding, from a video bitstream for which adaptive loop filtering is enabled for luma and chroma blocks of a picture, a slice, a tile, or a tile group [Hu: abstract].
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses wherein the maximum number does not depend on a number of tiles dividing a slice([para 0178]- see ref. to maximum number of previously signaled filters could be fixed noting that each ALF is referenced in a corresponding parameter set as indicated in the abstract and para 007; see also Seregin et al., US 2020/0344473 A1, [para 0013]).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 3 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 4 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 6 have been met in claim 1.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of IZUMI et al. (US 2018/0027257 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Hu do not explicitly disclose wherein the decoded image is a celestial spherical image.
In an analogous art, IZUMI discloses wherein the decoded image is a celestial spherical image([see in Fig. 4]- obtained by combining the entire celestial sphere image of the first surface of the first resolution and the entire celestial sphere image of the second surface of the second resolution which is lower than first resolution). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of IZUMI to the modified system of Chen and Hu an image processing device and an image processing method, which are capable of immediately displaying an image of a field-of-view range of a user[IZUMI; para 0001].
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Van et al., US 20140/192892 A1, discloses techniques for deblocking coded blocks of video data, e.g., transform units (TUs), coding units (CUs), or prediction units (PUs). Block-based video coding techniques can sometimes lead to "blockiness" artifacts, where boundaries or edges between individually coded blocks can be perceived.
2. HANNUKSELA et. al., 2014/0003489 A1, discloses a method, apparatus and computer program product are provided that permit values of certain parameters or syntax elements, such as the HRD parameters and/or a level indicator, to be taken from a syntax structure, such as a sequence parameter set.
3. DESHPANDE et al., US 2013/0272619 A1, discloses devices for identifying a leading picture.
4. COBAN et al., US. 2020/0344473 A1, discloses video decoding apparatus for providing adaptation parameter sets (APS) for adaptive loop filter (ALF) parameters.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights