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
Preliminary Amendment, filed 01/09/2025, has been entered.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 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.
Claim 10 is 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. The claim limitation “the block value is mapped to a look-up table” renders indefinite because a look-up table or the mapping of the block value is not described explicitly in the Specification. The functional relationship (i.e. mapping) between the block value and the look-up table can’t be determined and the contents of the look-up table are not shown explicitly.
Claims 14-17 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. The claim limitation “a mapping between the block value and the look-up table” renders indefinite for the same reasons as claim 10.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 18-19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong et al. (“Chong”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2013/0101018 A1 provided in IDS filed on 01/09/2025]
Regarding claim 1, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) processing of reconstructed video [Fig. 6, 7: ‘ALF unit’; para. 0096, 0098: ‘filter the output of the summer 62’; ‘the summer 62 to reconstruct the encoded block’], the method comprising:
receiving reconstructed pixels [Fig. 6, 7; para. 0096-0098: ‘Summer 62 combines the predicted block with … to reconstruct the encoded block’], wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise a current colour block and the current colour block comprises a luma block and one or more chroma blocks [para. 0026, 0059-0060: ‘A CU usually has a luminance component, …and two chroma components….’; ‘luma components of a block of pixels’; ‘chroma components of the block of pixels’];
deriving a filtered luma output from one luma ALF [Fig. 6, 7: ‘ALF Unit’; para. 0059-0060; 0096-0098; 0113: ‘The filtered reconstructed video block is then stored …’; ] selected from a set of luma ALFs according to luma block classification (i.e. ‘For each class, one set of linear filter coefficients … can be used’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘a filter for the 4x4 block of pixels can be selected based on a two-dimensional mapping of activity and direction to filters’; ‘single metric may be used to select a filter’] derived for each luma ALF classification block of the luma block [para. 0059-0060; 0096-0098; 0113: ‘perform luma adaptive loop filtering for luma components of a block of pixels’; ‘perform chroma adaptive loop filtering for chroma components of the block of pixels’];
deriving a filtered chroma output from one chroma ALF selected from a set of chroma ALFs according to chroma block classification derived for each chroma ALF classification block of each of said one or more chroma blocks [para. 0059-0060; 0096-0098; 0113: ‘perform chroma adaptive loop filtering for chroma components of the block of pixels’]; and
providing filtered-reconstructed pixels [Fig. 6, 7: ‘Ref. Frame Buffer’], wherein the filtered-reconstructed pixels comprise the filtered luma output and the filtered chroma output [para. 0059-0060: ‘luma components of a block of pixels’; ‘chroma components of the block of pixels’].
Regarding claim 2, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein said one or more chroma blocks correspond to a Cb block and a Cr block (i.e. ‘both the Cr and Cb components’) [Fig. 4A; para. 0026], and corresponding chroma ALF classification blocks for the Cb block and the Cr block share a same chroma classification class [Fig. 4A; para. 0087, 0092-0094: ‘the Cr and Cb components may use the same region or block-based classification’].
Regarding claim 3, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein said same chroma classification class is determined according to sample values of the corresponding chroma ALF classification blocks for the Cb block and the Cr block [Fig. 4A; para. 0026, 0087, 0092-0094: ‘the Cr and Cb components may use the same region or block-based classification’].
Regarding claim 5, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein said each chroma ALF classification block (i.e. ‘Activity … for the 4x4 block’) [para. 0062, 0077: ‘each 4x4 block derives one class’] corresponds to a B×B chroma block, wherein B is a positive integer (i.e. 4x4 or 2x2) [para. 0062, 0077, 0082-0085, 0127, 0129: e.g. 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 pixel formats].
Regarding claim 6, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the B is equal to 2 [para. 0062, 0077, 0082-0085, 0127, 0129: e.g. 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 pixel formats].
Regarding claim 7, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the current colour block corresponds to a 4:2:0 colour block [para. 0062, 0077, 0082-0085, 0127, 0129: e.g. 4:2:0], and a 2×2 luma block (i.e. a 2x2 block of ‘pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’) [para. 0023, 0062-0077: ‘the horizontal activity of the 4x4 block … based on … pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’, i.e. a 2x2 block; ‘only one ALF is used for chroma components, and its use is dependent on the luma ALF being used’] in a corresponding 4×4 luma block for deriving a luma classification class (e.g., ‘the direction and activity’) is used for deriving a chroma classification class for the 2×2 chroma block [para. 0044, 0062, 0077, 0082-0090, 0127, 0129: ‘ the actual filter coefficients determined according to region or block-based classification for use by the luma ALF may also be used for the chroma ALF.’].
Regarding claim 8, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the current colour block corresponds to a 4:2:0 colour block [para. 0062, 0077, 0082-0085, 0127, 0129: e.g. 4:2:0], and a luma classification class (e.g., ‘the direction and activity’) for a 2×2 luma block (i.e. a 2x2 block of ‘pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’) [para. 0023, 0062-0077: ‘the horizontal activity of the 4x4 block … based on … pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’; ‘only one ALF is used for chroma components, and its use is dependent on the luma ALF being used’] in a corresponding 4×4 luma block is used as a chroma classification class for the 2×2 chroma block [para. 0044, 0062, 0077, 0082-0090, 0127, 0129: ‘ the actual filter coefficients determined according to region or block-based classification for use by the luma ALF may also be used for the chroma ALF.’].
Regarding claim 9, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the current colour block corresponds to a 4:4:4 colour block [para. 0082: such as 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 pixel format], and a corresponding 2×2 luma block (i.e. a 2x2 block of ‘pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’) [para. 0023, 0062-0077: ‘the horizontal activity of the 4x4 block … based on … pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’; ‘only one ALF is used for chroma components, and its use is dependent on the luma ALF being used’] is used to derive a chroma classification class (e.g., ‘the direction and activity’) for the 2×2 chroma block [para. 0044, 0062, 0077, 0082-0090, 0127, 0129: ‘ the actual filter coefficients determined according to region or block-based classification for use by the luma ALF may also be used for the chroma ALF.’].
Regarding claim 18, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a large chroma block [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] larger than said each chroma ALF classification block (i.e. a 2x2 block of ‘pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’) is used to derive a chroma classification class for said each chroma ALF classification block [para. 0023, 0062-0077: ‘the horizontal activity of the 4x4 block … based on … pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’; ‘only one ALF is used for chroma components, and its use is dependent on the luma ALF being used’].
Regarding claim 19, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the chroma block classification (i.e. ‘Activity (LB)’) [para. 0064-0074] uses a same classification rule as the luma block classification [para. 0023, 0062-0077: ‘the horizontal activity of the 4x4 block … based on … pixels (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), and (2,2)’; ‘only one ALF is used for chroma components, and its use is dependent on the luma ALF being used’].
Regarding claim 21, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of Hu et al. (“Hu”) [US 2020/0204801 A1]
Regarding claim 4, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein said same chroma classification class is determined [para. 0062-0078: ‘each 4x4 block derives one class’] according to sample values (e.g., 4x4 blocks) of the corresponding chroma ALF classification blocks for the Cb block and the Cr block [para. 0079: ‘the chroma ALF filer is only enabled’] and said each luma ALF classification block of the luma block [para. 0079: ‘the decision to use the luma ALF’].
Chong does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein said same chroma classification class is determined according to sample values of the corresponding chroma ALF classification blocks for the Cb block and the Cr block and said each luma ALF classification block of the luma block.
However in the same field of endeavor Hu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein said same chroma classification class is determined according to sample values [para. 0043: ‘three sample arrays, denoted SL, SCb, and SCr’] of the corresponding chroma ALF classification blocks for the Cb block and the Cr block and said each luma ALF classification block of the luma block [para. 0078, 0158-0159: ‘configured to determine one of a plurality of classes of ALF to apply to a block of video data (e.g., a block of luma samples and chroma samples’)].
Chong and Hu are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chong and Hu as motivation to determine one of plurality of classes of ALF to a block of luma and chroma samples in accordance of the video standard VTM3.
Claims 10, 11 and 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong in view of obviousness
Regarding claim 10, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein a block value (i.e. ‘LB’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] of the B×B chroma block is calculated and the block value (i.e. ‘LB’) is mapped (i.e. ‘classified’) to (i.e. classified to ‘N classes’ or ‘N ranges’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘N classes (0, 1, 2, …, N-1’; ‘The value of LB can be classified into a range], and wherein a chroma classification class (i.e. ‘LB’) is determined from (i.e. ‘N classes’) [para. 0062-0077].
Chong does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a block value of the B×B chroma block is calculated and the block value is mapped to a look-up table, and wherein a chroma classification class is determined from the look-up table.
However Chong also discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a block value (i.e. ‘LB’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] of the B×B chroma block is calculated and the block value (i.e. ‘LB’) is mapped to a look-up table (i.e. ‘a filter’) [para. 0077: ‘a filter may be selected based on a two-dimensional mapping of activity and direction to filters’], and wherein a chroma classification class is determined from the look-up table [para. 0062-0077: ‘mapping of activity and direction to filters’ obviously discloses ‘the look-up table’].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention include a look-up table to classify ‘LB’ into a range of N classes as mapping of ‘LB’ into a filter.
Regarding claim 11, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the block value of the B×B chroma block corresponds to a sample sum (i.e. ‘LB’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] of the B×B chroma block (e.g., 4x4 blocks) [para. 0062-0077].
Regarding claim 14, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein a mapping between the block value (i.e. ‘LB’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] and the look-up table is pre-defined (i.e. ‘N classes’) [para. 0062-0077].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention include a look-up table to classify ‘LB’ into a range of N classes as mapping of ‘LB’ into a filter.
Regarding claim 15, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein a mapping between the block value (i.e. ‘LB’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] and the look-up table is determined adaptively (i.e. ‘N classes’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘any number of ranges may be used’].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention include a look-up table to classify ‘LB’ into a range of N classes as mapping of ‘LB’ into a filter.
Regarding claim 16, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 15, wherein analysis (i.e. ‘The computation of the direction and activity’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘Activity (LB) for the 4x4 block’] is applied to a picture containing the current colour block and the mapping between the block value and the look-up table is determined according to an analysis result (i.e. ‘N classes’) [para. 0062-0077].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention include a look-up table to classify ‘LB’ into a range of N classes as mapping of ‘LB’ into a filter.
Regarding claim 17, Chong meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein a mapping between the block value and the look-up table is non-uniform (i.e. ‘N classes’) [para. 0062-0077: ‘‘Activity (LB)’].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention include a look-up table to classify ‘LB’ into a range of N classes as mapping of ‘LB’ into a filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 12, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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 PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights