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 6/29/26 regarding application 18/986675 that was initially filed on 12/18/14. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims recite “(a) wherein an input of the first filter and an output of the first filter are an input of the second filter, or (b) wherein the input of the first filter and the output of the first filter are combined by the second filter, and (c) wherein the first filter is one of: a neural network (NN) filter, a deblocking filter, or a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, and/or (d) wherein the first filter is a combination of the NN filter and the deblocking filter, and/or (e) wherein the second filter comprises at least one of: an adaptive loop filter (ALF), or a cross-component ALF (CCALF).” (Markings (a)-(e) and underlines are added.) The features are connected by a combination of OR and AND. Note that the term “and/or” can mean “and,” or “or,” and the “or” is used in the Office Actions for the prosecution of this case. Thus, the limitations are connected as (a) or (b) and (c) or (d) or (e). This has multi-interpretations. For example, it could be (a). Another example is (b) and (d). Another example is simply (e). Thus, it is not clear, for example, whether (b) is required or not. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of the prosecution, the first interpretation is used. All dependent claims do not cure the deficiency.
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 - 4 and 6 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kao et al., US 2017/0238021 A1 (hereinafter Kao).
As for claim 1, Kao discloses a method of video processing, comprising: applying, for a conversion ([0052], e.g., video encoder and/or [0061], e.g., video decoder) between a video unit of a video ([0052], e.g., video) and a bitstream of the video ([0060], e.g., bitstream), a connection ([0058], e.g., An output of the deblocking filter 365 is connected in signal communication with a second input of the sparsity de-noising filter 344) to a plurality of filters ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365 and de-noising filter 344), wherein the plurality of filters comprises a first filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365) and a second filter ([0058], e.g., de-noising filter 344); applying the plurality of filters ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365 and de-noising filter 344) with the connection ([0058], e.g., An output of the deblocking filter 365 is connected in signal communication with a second input of the sparsity de-noising filter 344) in combination to the video unit ([0053], e.g., frame and/or [0054], e.g., macroblock) to define a filtered video unit, wherein an input of the first filter and an output of the first filter are an input of the second filter ([0101], e.g., control is passed to a decision block 630 and/or Fig. 6, e.g., element 620, note the path of NO that skip de-blocking filter), or wherein the input of the first filter and the output of the first filter are combined by the second filter, and wherein the first filter is one of: a neural network (NN) filter, a deblocking filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365), or a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, and/or wherein the first filter is a combination of NN filter and deblocking filter, and/or wherein the second filter comprises at least one of: an adaptive loop filter (ALF), or a cross-component ALF (CCALF); and performing the conversion ([0052], e.g., video encoder and/or [0061], e.g., video decoder) based on the filtered video unit ([0053], e.g., frame and/or [0054], e.g., macroblock).
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Kao further discloses applying the connection to the plurality of filters comprises: applying a skip connection to the plurality of filters ([0101], e.g., control is passed to a decision block 630 and/or Fig. 6, e.g., element 620, note the path of NO that skip de-blocking filter), or applying a cross-component connection to the plurality of filters.
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 2. In addition, Kao further discloses filtering a first component is dependent on filtering a second component, or wherein the second filter that filters the second component is used for guiding the first filter that filters the first component, and/or wherein the cross-component connection is dependent on at least one of: coding samples of the video unit, a coding mode of the video unit, or a coding statistic of the video unit, and/or wherein at least one filter in the plurality of filters is one of: a deblocking filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, an ALF, or a NN filter.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 3. In addition, Kao further discloses the first component is a luma component and the second component is a chroma component, or wherein the first component is the chroma component and the second component is the luma component, and/or wherein the first component is Y component, and the second component is at least one of: Cb component or Cr component, and/or wherein the first component is Cb component, and the second component is at least one of: Y component or Cr component, and/or wherein the first component is Cr component, and the second component is at last one of: Y component or Cb component, and/or wherein the coding statistic comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a quantization parameter (QP), a temporal layer, or a slice type, and/or wherein samples before the second filter ([0058], e.g., de-noising filter 344) are used for the first filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365), and/or wherein samples after the second filter are used for the first filter, and/or wherein information generated by the second filter is used for the first filter, and/or wherein the first component is a luma component and the second component is a chroma component, or wherein the first component is the chroma component and the second component is the luma component, and/or wherein the first component is Y component and the second component is at least one of: Cb component or Cr component, or wherein the first component is Cb component and the second component is at least one of: Y component or Cr component.
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Kao further discloses applying the connection to the plurality of filters comprises: combining the plurality of filters by a skip connection ([0101], e.g., control is passed to a decision block 630 and/or Fig. 6, e.g., element 620, note the path of NO that skip de-blocking filter).
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6. In addition, Kao further discloses a number of filters ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365 and de-noising filter 344) are involved in the skip connection ([0101], e.g., control is passed to a decision block 630 and/or Fig. 6, e.g., element 620, note the path of NO that skip de-blocking filter), and/or wherein the skip connection is a short connection, and/or wherein the skip connection is a long connection, and/or wherein the skip connection is applied to a set of filters with indexes from i to j which are applied in a serial order, and/or wherein the skip connection is applied to a first filter, and/or wherein the skip connection is at least one of: an add or subtraction operation with weighting parameters, and/or wherein the skip connection is a concatenation operation, and/or wherein the skip connection is a fusion operation, and/or wherein an input of a third filter is Ii-1(x,y) and Ii(x,y), and wherein Ii(x,y) represents an output of a filter with index i, Ii-1(x,y) represents an input of filter with index i , and/or wherein an input of a third filter is Ij-1(x,y) and Ij(x,y), and wherein Ij(x,y) represents an output of a filter with index j, Ij-1(x,y) represents an input of filter with index j , and/or wherein an output of a third filer is a function f(*,*) of an input Ii-1(x,y)of a filter with index i and an output Ii(x,y) of the filter with index i , and/or wherein an output of a third filer is a function f(*,*) of an input Ii-1(x,y)of a filter with index i and an output Ij(x,y) of the filter with index j, and/or wherein a plurality of skip connection operations is combined.
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Kao further discloses the number of filters involved in the skip connection is a positive integer or zero, and/or wherein the number of filters involved in the skip connection is 0, 1, 2 ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365 and de-noising filter 344), 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, and/or wherein one filter is involved in the skip connection, and/or wherein a set filters with indexes from i to j are involved in the skip connection, wherein i and j represent filter indexes and are integer numbers, and/or wherein i is less than or greater than j, and/or wherein at least one of: NN filter or deblocking filter is involved in the skip connection, and/or wherein samples before at least one of: NN filter or deblocking filter are additional input of at least one of: ALF or CCALF, and/or wherein an input of a first filter and an output of a second filter are an input of a third filter, the first filter is applied before or after the second filter, and/or wherein the skip connection is applied to a filter with index i and a third filter, and another skip connection is applied to a filter with index j and the third filter, and/or wherein an input of the first filter and an output of a second filter are input of a third filter, and/or wherein O(x,y) = w1 * f1(Ii-1(x,y)) + w2 * f2(Ii(x,y)), and wherein Ii(x,y) represents an output of a filter with index i, Ii-1(x,y) represents an input of filter with index i, O(x,y) represents an output of a third flter, w1 and w2 represent the weighting parameters, respectively, and f1 and f2 represent functions, respectively.
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 8. In addition, Kao further discloses the first filter is a NN filter or deblocking filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365), and/or wherein the first filter is a combination of a set of filters, and/or wherein the second filter is at least one of: a SAO filter or a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter, and/or wherein the third filter is at least one of: an ALF or a CCALF, and/or wherein the first filer is one of: a NN filter, a deblocking filter or a SAO filter, and/or wherein the first filter is a combination of a set of filters, and/or wherein the third filter is at least one of ALF or CCALF, and/or wherein at least one of: f1(*) or f2(*) is a KxK filter with the weighting parameters, wherein K is an integer number, wherein at least one of: w1 or w2 is equal to 1, or wherein at least one of: w1 or w2 is equal to 0, and/or wherein a sum of w1 and w2 is equal to a predefined value, and/or wherein samples around (x,y) are used in the functions.
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 9. In addition, Kao further discloses the first filter is a combination of NN filter and deblocking filter ([0058], e.g., deblocking filter 365), and/or wherein the predefined value is equal to 1.
As for claim 11, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Kao further discloses f(*,*) is at least one of: an add or subtraction operation function with the weighting parameters, and/or wherein f(*,*) is a fusion function, or f(*,*) is a concatenation function, and/or wherein O(x,y) = f(Ii-1(x,y), Ii(x,y)), and/or wherein samples around (x,y) are used in the function, and/or wherein the filter with index i is one of: NN filter, deblocking filter, or SAO filter, and/or wherein the filter with index i is a combination of a set of filters, and/or wherein the third filter is at least one of: ALF or CCALF, and/or wherein the filter with index i uses a 5x5 or 3x3 filters, and/or wherein the third filter uses a 7x7 or 5x5 filters (Note that no citation is provided for this claim because the limitation in one or more parent claims are in optional form and the limitations in this claim are not related to the limitation chosen in the parent claims.).
As for claim 12, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 11. In addition, Kao further discloses the samples are located at a predefined area, and a sample (x,y) is located at a central position of the predefined area, and/or wherein parameters are same of symmetry or diagonal samples, and/or wherein a shape of samples Ii-1(x,y) is different from a shape of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein the shape of samples Ii-1(x,y) is same as the shape of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein a number of samples Ii-1(x,y) is different from the number of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein the number of samples Ii-1(x,y) is same as the number of samples Ij(x,y) (Note that no citation is provided for this claim because the limitation in one or more parent claims are in optional form and the limitations in this claim are not related to the limitation chosen in the parent claims.).
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Kao further discloses the predefined area is one of: diamond, rectangle or quadrangle, and/or wherein the number of samples in the predefined area is L, wherein L is an integer number (Note that no citation is provided for this claim because the limitation in one or more parent claims are in optional form and the limitations in this claim are not related to the limitation chosen in the parent claims.).
As for claim 14, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Kao further discloses f(*,*) is at least one of: an add or subtraction operation function with the weighting parameters, or wherein f(*,*) is a fusion function, or f(*,*) is a concatenation function, and/or wherein O(x,y) = f(Ii-1(x,y), Ij(x,y)), and/or wherein samples around (x,y) are used in the function, and/or wherein the filter with index i is one of: NN filter, deblocking filter, or SAO filter, and/or wherein the filter with index i is a combination of a set of filters, and/or wherein the filter with index i is at least one of: a SAO filter or CCSAO filter, and/or wherein the third filter is at least one of: ALF or CCALF (Note that no citation is provided for this claim because the limitation in one or more parent claims are in optional form and the limitations in this claim are not related to the limitation chosen in the parent claims.).
As for claim 15, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 14. In addition, Kao further discloses the samples are located at a predefined area, and a sample (x,y) is located at a central position of the predefined area, and/or wherein the weighting parameters are same of symmetry or diagonal samples, and/or wherein a shape of samples Ii-1(x,y) is different from a shape of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein the shape of samples Ii-1(x,y) is same as the shape of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein the number of samples Ii-1(x,y) is different from the number of samples Ij(x,y), or wherein the number of samples Ii-1(x,y) is same as the number of samples Ij(x,y) (Note that no citation is provided for this claim because the limitation in one or more parent claims are in optional form and the limitations in this claim are not related to the limitation chosen in the parent claims.).
As for claim 16, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Kao further discloses the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream ([0052], e.g., video encoder).
As for claim 17, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Kao further discloses the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream ([0061], e.g., video decoder).
As for claim 18, the claim recites an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 19, the claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 20, the claim recites a method for storing a bitstream of a video of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites that : (i) the first filter's input and output both serve as inputs to the second filter (i.e., a skip connection structure where the second filter receives both the pre- filtered and post-filtered signals); (ii) the first filter is specified as a NN filter, a deblocking filter, a SAO filter, or a combination of NN filter and deblocking filter; and (iii) the second filter comprises at least one of an ALF or a CCALF. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Not all of the features are required based on the claim language. As explained under 112(b) rejection, the features are connected by a combination of OR and AND that results in multiple interpretations. Regardless which one is used, it is clear that not all (i), (ii), and (ii) are required per the claim language. Thus, the argument is not commensurate to the claim language.
While Applicant argues that Kao does not disclose or suggest a neural network (NN) filter, a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, an adaptive loop filter (ALF), or a cross-component ALF (CCALF), with the same reason above, these features are in optional form, thus, not all these features are required. Thus, the argument is not commensurate to the claim language.
While Applicant argues that the claimed feature recites that both the input and the output of the first filter are provided to the second filter so that they can be combined, the feature is in optional form, thus, it is not required. In addition, while Applicant argues that both the input and the output of the first filter are provided to the second filter simultaneously, the claim language does not explicitly require simultaneous processing. Thus, the argument is not commensurate to the claim language. Note that it appears to be a feature of the instant invention, and if the feature is included in the claim language in a required form (not in an optional form), it may overcome the current rejection.
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
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights