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
In the 06/01/2026 Remarks, Applicant states that “claims 1, 5, and 15 have been amended to correct a typographical error.” While this amendment corrects a typographical error, it also changes the scope of the claims. Weighing something is not the same as weighting it.
Generally, “to weigh the set of generated correction values” has a different claim scope than “to weight the set of generated correction values” (emphasis added. Specifically, “to weigh the set of generated correction values” is to measure the actual value of the correction values. Differently, “to weight the set of generated correction values” is to bias or adjust the correction values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/01/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “to weigh the set of generated correction values,” which contains a typographical error, appears in the abstract as well as paragraphs [0011], [0014], [0094], and [0114] of the patent application publication of the instant application. Paragraphs [0014], [0094] and [0114] also state that “each subset of samples can be weighed by a corresponding filter strength,” which is also a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461).
Regarding claim 1,
Galpin 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 (Galpin: [0004]-[0005], [0057]-[0060], Fig 11; [0058]; The method starts at step S100 [ ... ] the picture part may be split into blocks. Encoding the picture part comprises encoding the blocks of the picture [ ... ] Reconstructing a block[ ... ] to obtain a block[ .. .]);
receiving a set of samples of the current block; filtering the received set of samples (Galpin; e.g. the above-mentioned passages; for example, [0058] further discloses: At step S130, the reconstructed picture part is filtered with a deblocking filter[ ... ] At step S140, at least one sample of the filtered picture part is classified into one class [ ... ] At step S150, the at least one sample is filtered with an ALF filter associated with the current class);
to generate a set of correction values; applying a set of filter strengths to weight the set of generated correction values; and adding the weighted set of correction values to the received set of samples as filtered samples of the current block (Galpin; [0060]-[0065]: At step S321, at least one sample is classified. At step S324, a weight is determined responsive to information derived from deblocking filtering and further from the current class [ ... ] At step S3240, a deblocking level is determined from the deblocking filtering, and then, at step S3250, a final weight is determined from both this (these) deblocking level(s) and ALF classification [ ... ] At step S322', the sample is filtered by weighting the adaptive loop filtering responsive to the weight determined at step S324 [ ... ] F3 = ALF(F2) *weight+ F2 * (1 - weight) [ ... ] F2 is the input of the ALF, thus R in equation (1 ). F3 is the output of the ALF thus R' in equation (1 );
in other words: a filtered sample value F3 corresponding to each received
sample F2 is calculated as
F3 = ALF(F2) *weight+ F2 * (1- weight)
i.e. F3 = F2 + [ ALF(F2) - F2] * weight
i.e. the filtered value for each received sample is obtained by adding a "weighted correction value" [ALF(F2) - F2] * weight to the received sample F2, as claimed; note that [ALF(F2) - F2] is an adaptive loop filter ALF whose center filter tap is modified by subtracting 1 to its original value, i.e. it is a "filter" applied to the received set of samples to generate the correction value, as claimed).
Regarding claim 2,
Galpin discloses:
The video coding method of claim 1, 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 (Galpin; [0058]; [0060]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Galpin 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) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461) in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0261863).
Regarding claim 3,
Galpin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Galpin fails to teach:
wherein the set of samples is classified into a plurality of subsets of samples.
Chen teaches:
wherein the set of samples is classified into a plurality of subsets of samples (Chen: abstract; classifying into a first group or a second group; [0026]-[0028]).
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 Chen with Galpin. Using an ALF, with groupings, from Chen would benefit the Galpin 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 Galpin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4,
Galpin in view of Chen teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the filtering of each subset of samples is individually turned on or off (Chen: abstract; [0023]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 5,
Galpin in view of Chen teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3, wherein the filtering of each subset of samples is weighed by a corresponding filter strength (Galpin; [0058]; [0060]-[0065]; Chen: abstract; [0026]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 6,
Galpin in view of Chen 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 (Chen: abstract; [0023]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 7,
Galpin in view of Chen 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 (Chen: [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 8,
Galpin in view of Chen 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 (Chen: Fig 4A-D; [0026]-[0027]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461) in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0261863) and Zhang et al. (US 2022/0109853).
Regarding claim 9,
Galpin in view of Chen teaches:
The video coding method of claim 3 (as shown above),
Galpin in view of Chen fails to teach:
wherein the set of samples are classified into the plurality of subsets by a model.
Zhang teaches:
wherein the set of samples are classified into the plurality of subsets by a model (Zhang: [0081]; [0083]).
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 Zhang with Galpin in view of Chen. Using a model to classify as in Zhang would benefit the Galpin in view of Chen teachings by enhancing coding quality and/or efficiency and follow a general trend in technology as model-based classification is common practice in the field of video compression.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461) in view of Hu et al. (US 2020/0314424).
Regarding claim 10,
Galpin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Galpin 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 Galpin. Using an ALF, with signaling, from Hu would benefit the Galpin 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 Galpin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11,
Galpin in view of Hu 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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0109853).
Regarding claim 12,
Galpin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Galpin 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.
Zhang 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 (Zhang: 0111]-[0113]).
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 Zhang with Galpin. Using an ALF, with signaling, from Zhang would benefit the Galpin 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 Galpin device, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin et al. (EP 3 525 461) in view of Yin et al. (US 2025/0063166).
Regarding claim 13,
Galpin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Galpin 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: [0143]; 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 Galpin. Using specific filters with specific inputs from Yin would benefit the Galpin 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 Galpin device, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14,
Galpin teaches:
The video coding method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Galpin 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 Galpin. Using specific filters with specific inputs from Yin would benefit the Galpin 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 Galpin device, to yield predictable results.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights