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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2018/0249177).
Regarding claim 1,
Lin discloses:
A video coding method comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video (Lin: Fig 1-3; video codec; [0069]-[0070]; [0075]-[0078]; [0084]-[0086]; code tree blocks made of blocks with pixels);
receiving a set of samples of the current block (Lin: [0084]-[0089]; samples, sample values, sample blocks; [0101]-[0108]; [0116]-[0120]);
filtering the received set of samples to generate a set of correction values (Lin: [0089]; [0092]; deblocking filter; sample adaptive offset (SAO); [0108]; [0120]; filter unit 159 determines a correction value);
applying a set of filter strengths to weigh the set of generated correction values (Lin: [0089]; [0092]; default deblocking filter; default sample adaptive offset (SAO); [0108]; [0120]; filter unit 159 determines a correction value according to the SAO syntactic element of the CTB); and
adding the weighted set of correction values to the received set of samples as filtered samples of the current block (Lin: [0089]; [0092]; default deblocking filter; default sample adaptive offset (SAO); [0108]; [0120]; filter unit 159 determines a correction value according to the SAO syntactic element of the CTB, and adds the determined correction value to a sample value in a reconstructed pixel block of the CTB; filter unit 159 corrects, by modifying some or all pixel values of the CTB of a picture, a reconstructed picture of the video data according to the SAO syntactic element).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses the system limitations of this claim as discussed above with respect to 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.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2018/0249177) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0211783).
Regarding claim 2,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1, wherein the filter is of a video coding system in which the filtered samples of the current block are provided for encoding or decoding subsequent blocks of the current picture (Lin: [0092]; after performing such operations, the video decoder 30 stores the pixel block of the CU in the decoded picture buffer. The decoded picture buffer provides a reference picture used for subsequent motion compensation, intra-frame prediction, and presentation by the display apparatus; [0121]; [0140]).
Lin fails to teach:
an adaptive loop filter (ALF)
Kim teaches:
wherein the filter is an adaptive loop filter (ALF) of a video coding system in which the filtered samples of the current block are provided for encoding or decoding subsequent blocks of the current picture (Kim: [0051]-[0052]; filtering unit 130 performs filtering operations to improve the quality of the reconstructed picture and to improve the coding efficiency; a deblocking filter, a sample adaptive offset (SAO), and an adaptive loop filter included; [0062]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with Lin. Using an ALF from Kim would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using an ALF, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Lin fails to teach:
wherein the set of samples is classified into a plurality of subsets of samples.
Kim teaches:
wherein the set of samples is classified into a plurality of subsets of samples (Kim: [0051]; The adaptive loop filter (ALF) is a technique of dividing pixels included in a video into predetermined groups and then determining one filter to be applied to each group, thereby performing filtering differently for each group; Information about whether to apply ALF may be signaled on a per-coding unit basis, and the shape and filter coefficients of an ALF to be applied may vary for each block).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with Lin. Using an ALF, with groupings, from Kim would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using an ALF, with groupings, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the filtering of each subset of samples is individually turned on or off (Kim: [0051]; Information about whether to apply ALF signaled on a per-coding unit basis, and the shape and filter coefficients of an ALF to be applied may vary for each block).
Regarding claim 5,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the filtering of each subset of samples is weighed by a corresponding filter strength (Lin: [0089]; [0092]; default deblocking filter; default sample adaptive offset (SAO); [0108]; [0120]; Kim: [0051]).
Regarding claim 6,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the filtering of a subset of samples is turned off by setting a corresponding filter strength to zero (Kim: [0051]; determining whether to apply ALF).
Regarding claim 7,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein each sample of the set of samples is classified based on a relationship of the sample with its neighbors into one of the plurality of subsets of samples (Kim: [0051]; ALF with same shape across blocks).
Regarding claim 8,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the set of samples are classified into the plurality of subsets based on a predetermined pattern (Kim: [0051]; shape and filter coefficients of an ALF to be applied may vary for each block; ALF filter having the same shape (a fixed shape) may be applied regardless of the characteristics of a target block to which the ALF filter is to be applied).
Regarding claim 9,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the set of samples are classified into the plurality of subsets by a model (Kim: [0051]; ALF signaled on a per-coding unit basis).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2018/0249177) in view of Hu et al. (US 2020/0314424).
Regarding claim 10,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Lin fails to teach:
wherein the set of filter strengths are indicated at a first level of the video, wherein whether to apply the filter strengths is determined at a second level of the video, wherein the first level is a higher level of the video than the second level.
Hu teaches:
wherein the set of filter strengths are indicated at a first level of the video, wherein whether to apply the filter strengths is determined at a second level of the video, wherein the first level is a higher level of the video than the second level (Hu: 0110]-[0117]; ALF APS signaled in a picture and/or slice header; Coding tree block (CTB) level on/off flag; Signal an ALF on/off flag for a luma CTB).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hu with Lin. Using an ALF, with signaling, from Kim would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using an ALF, with signaling, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11,
Lin in view of Kim teaches:
The video coding method of claim 10, wherein the first level is a slice level, and second level is a coding tree block (CTB) (Hu: 0110]-[0117]; ALF APS signaled in a picture and/or slice header; Coding tree block (CTB) level on/off flag; Signal an ALF on/off flag for a luma CTB).
Regarding claim 12,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Lin fails to teach:
wherein the set of filter strengths is determined by applying a filter strength model to the set of samples, wherein the filter strength model is signaled in a bitstream of coded video.
Hu teaches:
wherein the set of filter strengths is determined by applying a filter strength model to the set of samples, wherein the filter strength model is signaled in a bitstream of coded video (Hu: 0110]-[0117]; ALF APS signaled in a picture and/or slice header; Coding tree block (CTB) level on/off flag; Signal an ALF on/off flag for a luma CTB).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hu with Lin. Using an ALF, with signaling, from Kim would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using an ALF, with signaling, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2018/0249177) in view of Yin et al. (US 2025/0063166).
Regarding claim 13,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Lin fails to teach:
wherein the filtering is based on a set of filter taps receiving input comprising (i) samples within the current block, (ii) samples neighboring the current block, or (iii) residual samples that are generated based on a prediction of the current block.
Yin teaches:
wherein the filtering is based on a set of filter taps receiving input comprising (i) samples within the current block, (ii) samples neighboring the current block, or (iii) residual samples that are generated based on a prediction of the current block (Yin: [-143]; spatial tap in ALF which utilizes the information of the spatial neighbor samples of the filtering component (e.g., spatial neighbor luma samples to filter the central luma sample inside one filter); [0147]; [0271]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yin with Lin. Using specific filters with specific inputs from Yin would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using specific filters with specific inputs, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14,
Lin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Lin fails to teach:
wherein the filtering is based on a set of filter taps having input comprising (i) samples generated by a deblock filter (DBF) or a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter or (ii) reconstructed samples of the current block without deblock filtering.
Yin teaches:
wherein the filtering is based on a set of filter taps having input comprising (i) samples generated by a deblock filter (DBF) or a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter or (ii) reconstructed samples of the current block without deblock filtering (Yin: [0314]; reconstruction samples before or after different coding stages of a current frame are used as input for an extended tap, or reconstruction before or after deblocking filter (DBF) of a current frame are used as input for an extended tap, or reconstruction before or after sample adaptive offset (SAO) or cross component SAO (CCSAO) of a current frame are used as input for an extended tap, or reconstruction before or after bilateral filter (BIF) of a current frame are used as input for an extended tap, or reconstruction before or after other stages of a current frame are used as input for an extended tap).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yin with Lin. Using specific filters with specific inputs from Yin would benefit the Lin teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using specific filters with specific inputs, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lin device, to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/JAMES M PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488