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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has made a correction to the kind code for GB2580190 on the IDS filed 6/5/26 and considered both references. As discussed on the phone and stated in the Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/5/26, the publication should be GB2580190A. The kind code listed on the IDS was still listed as “D0”, not “A” as discussed. If this is incorrect, the Examiner requests that the Applicant notify the Examiner in the next formal response.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraphs [0195], of the Applicant’s Specification as filed, as best understood by the Examiner and based on discussions with attorney Li Jiang in the parent application, “VCC” should be “VVC” in each of the abovementioned paragraphs.
Further in paragraph [0203] of the Applicant’s Specification as filed, on line 3, “form” should be “from”.
While a few of the corrections were made, there are still 2 remaining.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,696 in view of the references cited below.
The instant application’s additional limitations are mapped below.
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 method taught by the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Taquet to improve coding efficiency and/r performance (Taquet [0005]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taquet et al. (U.S. 2022/0078415), hereinafter Taquet.
Regarding claim 1, Taquet discloses a loop filtering method comprising:
obtaining multiple sets of filter coefficients in a bitstream (Taquet [0061], [0526] and fig. 11);
encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using a non-differential encoding method, the non-differential encoding method including an exponential Golomb encoding method, and encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using the non-differential encoding method includes encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using the exponential Golomb encoding method to obtain encoded values (Taquet [0061] and [0067]), and writing the encoded values into the bitstream (Taquet [0526] and fig. 10);
determining clip index parameters of a loop filter (Taquet [0153], [0157] and [0279]); and
encoding the clip index parameters (Taquet [0153] and [0157]);
wherein:
the loop filter includes a nonlinear loop filter (Taquet [0141] and [0005]), and the nonlinear loop filter includes a clip operation (Taquet [0141] and [0413]); and
the clip index parameters are configured to identify and distinguish different clip parameters in the clip operation (Taquet [0156]-[0157]).
Regarding claim 7, Taquet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the clip index parameters of the loop filter includes, before encoding the clip index parameters:
calculating a rate-distortion (RD) cost of an encoded frame (Taquet fig. 9) based on a non-exponential Golomb encoding method (Taquet [0218]) and determining the clip index parameters based on the RD cost (Taquet [0094] and [0490]).
Regarding claim 8, Taquet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
a rate-distortion (RD) cost of an encoded frame is not calculated based on an exponential Golomb encoding method before the clip index parameters are encoded (Taquet [0094] and [0490]).
Regarding claim 10, Taquet discloses a loop filtering method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream of a loop filter (Taquet [0526] and fig. 11) filter, the loop filter being a nonlinear loop filter (Taquet [0141] and [0005]); and
decoding indication information indicating a number of filter coefficient sets in the bitstream, and determining that there are multiple sets of filter coefficients (Taquet [0061], [0526] and fig. 11);
decoding a filter coefficient bitstream in the bitstream (Taquet [0526]) using a non-differential decoding method to obtain the multiple sets of filter coefficients (Taquet [0061] and [0067]);
decoding a clip index parameter bitstream in the bitstream (Taquet [0526] and fig. 11) using a non-exponential Golomb decoding method (Taquet [0218]) to obtain clip index parameters (Taquet [0153] and [0157]) of the nonlinear loop filter (Taquet [0141] and [0413]); wherein:
the nonlinear loop filter includes a clip operation (Taquet [0141] and [0413]); and
the clip index parameters are configured to identify and distinguish different clip parameters in the clip operation (Taquet [0156]-[0157]).
Regarding claim 17, Taquet discloses the method of claim 10, wherein: an encoding method of the filter coefficient bitstream (Taquet [0526] and fig. 11) is not decoded before the non-differential decoding method is used to decode the filter coefficient bitstream in the bitstream (Taquet [0061], [0067] and [0225]).
Regarding claim 18, Taquet discloses the method of claim 10, wherein: the bitstream does not include a syntax element bitstream (Taquet [0526] and fig. 11) indicating the encoding method of the filter coefficient bitstream (Taquet [0061], [0067], [0225], [0526] and fig. 11)).
Regarding claim 19, Taquet discloses a bitstream generating method comprising: obtaining multiple sets of filter coefficients in a bitstream; encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using a non-differential encoding method, the non-differential encoding method including an exponential Golomb encoding method, and encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using the non-differential encoding method includes encoding the multiple sets of filter coefficients using the exponential Golomb encoding method to obtain encoded values, and writing the encoded values into the bitstream; determining clip index parameters of a loop filter; and encoding the clip index parameters to obtain bitstream (Taquet [0526] and fig. 10); wherein: the loop filter includes a nonlinear loop filter, and the nonlinear loop filter includes a clip operation; and the clip index parameters are configured to identify and distinguish different clip parameters in the clip operation (see claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taquet in view of Lim et al. ("Non-CE5: Simplification on ALF clipping parameter coding", JVET-00058-v1, June 18, 2019), hereinafter Lim. An NPL copy has been attached.
Regarding claim 2, Taquet discloses the method of claim 1. Taquet does not explicitly disclose wherein: each of the clip index parameters is an integer value that is either 0, 1, 2, or 3.
However, Lim teaches, wherein:
each of the clip index parameters is an integer value that is either 0, 1, 2, or 3 (Lim p. 4, section 7.4.6.3).
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 method taught by Taquet with the missing limitations as taught by Lim to be able to improve coding efficiency as a result of having only a limited number of values (Lim p. 4, section 7.4.6.3).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Taquet in view of Lim teaches the method of claim 10, wherein: each of the clip index parameters is an integer value that is either 0, 1, 2, or 3 (see claim 2).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to the missing limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, Taquet in view of Lim teaches the method of claim 19, wherein: each of the clip index parameters is an integer value that is either 0, 1, 2, or 3 (see claim 2).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to the missing limitations of claim 20.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taquet in view of Hu et al. ("Non-CE5: Modification of clipping value signalling for adaptive loop filter", JVET-00064-v1, June 17, 2019), hereinafter Hu. An NPL copy has been attached.
Regarding claim 3, Taquet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
encoding the clip index parameters includes encoding the clip index parameters by using a non-exponential Golomb encoding method (Taquet [0218]).
Taquet does not explicitly disclose a number of coding bits of the non-exponential Golomb encoding method is not more than 4.
However, Hu teaches encoding the clip index parameters includes encoding the clip index parameters by using a non-exponential Golomb encoding method (Hu p. 1, section 2); and
a number of coding bits of the non-exponential Golomb encoding method is not more than 4 (Hu p. 1, section 2).
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 method taught by Taquet with the missing limitations as taught by Hu to simplify the clipping parameter signaling of ALF (Hu1 p. 1, section 2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
encoding the clip index parameters includes encoding the clip index parameters by using a non-exponential Golomb encoding method (Taquet [0218] and Hu p. 1, section 2); and
the non-exponential Golomb encoding method is a fixed-length code encoding method, a unary encoding method, or a truncated unary encoding method (Hu p. 1, section 2).
The same motivation for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein:
the non-exponential Golomb encoding method is the fixed-length code encoding method, and the number of coding bits of the fixed-length code encoding method is 2 (Hu p. 1, section 2).
The same motivation for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein:
the non-exponential Golomb encoding method is the truncated unary encoding method, and the number of coding bits of the truncated unary encoding method is not more than 3 (Hu p. 1, section 2).
The same motivation for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 10, wherein: and a number of coding bits of the non-exponential Golomb decoding method is not more than 4 (see claims 3 and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method claim 10, wherein: the non-exponential Golomb decoding method is one of a fixed-length code decoding method, a unary decoding method, or a truncated unary decoding method (see claims 4 and 10).
Regarding claim 14, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 13, wherein: the non-exponential Golomb decoding method is the fixed-length code decoding method, and the number of coding bits of the fixed-length code encoding method is 2 (see claims 5 and 10).
Regarding claim 15, Taquet in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 13, wherein: the non-exponential Golomb decoding method is the truncated unary decoding method, and the number of coding bits of the truncated unary decoding method is not more than 3 (see claims 6 and 10).
Claim(s) 21 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taquet et al. (U.S. 2022/0078415), hereinafter Taquet in view of Kotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0060703), hereinafter Kotra.
Regarding claim 21, Taquet discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the clip index parameters include:
a first clip index parameter for luma component (Taquet [0160]-[0161], [0279]), a first clip parameter for the luma component being selected from a parameter list based on the first clip index parameter (Taquet [0161]), and
a second clip index parameter for chrominance component (Taquet [0160] and [0291]), a second clip parameter for the chrominance component being selected from the parameter list based on the second clip index parameter (Taquet [0161]).
Taquet does not explicitly disclose that luma represents brightness.
However, Kotra teaches that luma represents brightness (Kotra [0153]).
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 method taught by Taquet with the missing limitations as taught by Kotra to be able to code brightness or grey level intensity of pictures (Kotra [0153]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Taquet in view of Kotra teaches the method of claim 21, wherein:
the parameter list contains a plurality of values including at least one of 4, 32, or 1024 (Taquet [0168]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant refers to claims 1-15 and 17-22 as pending on p. 11 of the Remarks filed 6/5/26, however, there is no claim 22 in the claims filed on the same date.
On pgs. 11-14 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the amended claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the above citations. After further consideration of the cited references, Taquet teaches exponential Golomb coding (Taquet [0061] and [0067]), which the Applicant’s claim 1 defines as a non-differential encoding method. Therefore, Taquet teaches the non-differential encoding amendment.
Additional citations were added for the remaining amended limitations.
On pg. 14 of the Applicant's Response, the Applicant requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance until the claims are in condition for allowance. MPEP section, 804(I)(B)(1) states that only objections and requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Moreover, MPEP §707 citing 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.104(b) states that the Examiner’s action will be complete as to all matters of compliance with applicable statutes and rules. Therefore, since the double patenting rejection is based on the subject matter of the claims and MPEP §707 cited above requires an Examiner’s action to be complete, the double patenting rejection is being upheld. While the Examiner understands that the claims may change as prosecution advances, the rejection is still upheld based on the abovementioned rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bross et al. ("Versatile Video Coding (Draft 5)", JVET-N1001-v8, June 11, 2019), hereinafter Bross discloses ALF clipping parameters (p. 98) similar to Applicant’s. An NPL copy has been attached.
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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights