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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/25 and 1/15/26 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/13/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two periods in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 40 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
3. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the weighted contribution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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) 33-37, 42-46 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0296365).
Regarding claim 33, Chen discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code (e.g. see ¶ [0032]); wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a virtual boundary that separates a picture, or a portion of the picture, into a first area and a second area (see 520 in fig. 5); and determine to perform filtering of at least one pixel of the first area with coding information of the second area derived from the first area or with the coding information of the second area set to at least one value (see “sample on other side” is padded in 530 of fig. 5), when the coding information of the second area is to be used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area (see “outside sample is replaced by a padded sample” form first area in 540 of fig. 5), or not perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area, when the coding information of the second area is to be used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area (e.g. see “accessing samples location at the other side of VB is forbidden” in ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 34, Chen further discloses wherein the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area comprises in-loop filtering (see 132 in fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 35, Chen further discloses to: pad pixels in the second area from pixels in the first area (see 530 in fig. 5), in response to the pixels in the second area being used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area (see 530 in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 36, Chen further discloses to: replace pixels in the second area with pixels extrapolated from the first area, in response to pixels in the second area being used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel in the first area (see 530 in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 37, Chen further discloses to: determine a first output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area, when coding information of the first area and the coding information of the second area are available for the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area (see 530 in fig. 5); and determine a second output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area, when the coding information of the second area is not available for the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area (e.g. see ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 42, Chen further discloses to: determine whether to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area without using the coding information of the second area (e.g. see ¶ [0024]), and determine whether to perform filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area without using coding information of the first area (e.g. see ¶ [0015]), in response to determination of a common option related to the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area and the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area (e.g. see ¶ [0024]), wherein the common option comprises at least one of the following: determining not to perform filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area, and determining not to perform filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area; determining to perform filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area with padding the coding information of the first area; and determining to perform filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area with padding coding information of the second area (e.g. see ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 43, Chen further discloses to: perform filtering of at least one pixel of the second area using coding information of the first area and the coding information of the second area (e.g. see ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 44, Chen further discloses wherein the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area comprises at least one of: deblocking filtering; sample adaptive offset edge offset filtering; bilateral filtering for luma; bilateral filtering for chroma; cross-component sample adaptive offset filtering; adaptive loop filtering (see 530 in fig. 5); or cross-component adaptive loop filtering.
Regarding claim 45, Chen further discloses to cause the apparatus at least to one of the following: disable the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area up to a number of pixel positions from the virtual boundary; or perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area up to a number of pixel positions form from the virtual boundary (see 530 in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 46, Chen further discloses to perform at least one of: set pixel values of the second area to be equal to a pixel value of the first area next to the virtual boundary (e.g. see ¶ [0024]); set pixel values of the second area to be equal to a mean of pixel values of the first area; or set pixel values of the second area to be equal to a median of pixel values of the first area; wherein the coding information of the second area comprises the set pixel values of the second area.
Regarding claim 51, the claim(s) recites a method with analogous limitations to claim 33, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 50, Chen does not discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine the at least one value with a bit depth BD. determine the at least one value as 2^(BD-1).
Although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art wherein bit depth are at least one value as 2^(BD-1). The Examiner takes official notice that bit depth are at least one value as 2^(BD-1) is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate such bit depth of 2^(BD-1) for the benefit of utilizing industries standards on bit depth selections for compatibility purposes.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lim et al. (US 2012/0314771).
Regarding claim 38, Chen does not disclose to determine a difference between the first output and the second output; and determine an output of filtering at least one pixel of the second area, using at least partially the difference or an approximation of the difference.
However, Lim discloses a compression and decompression system to determine a difference between a first output and a second output (see 5310 in fig. 53; e.g. see ¶ [0293]); and determine an output of filtering at least one pixel of the second area, using at least partially the difference or an approximation of the difference (e.g. see ¶ [0293]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Lim teachings of selecting optimum filter mode from a plurality of filtering mode into Chen filtering mode for the benefit of utilizing the best filtering scheme on a virtual boundary for reducing residual errors.
Regarding claim 39, Chen does not disclose to determine a difference between the first output and the second output; determine an initial output of filtering at least one pixel of the second area; and determine a final output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area, with subtracting at least partially the difference from the initial output.
However, Lim discloses a compression and decompression system to determine a difference between the first output and the second output (see 5310 in fig. 53; e.g. see ¶ [0293]); determine an initial output of filtering at least one pixel of the second area; and determine a final output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area, with subtracting at least partially the difference from the initial output (e.g. see ¶ [0293]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Lim teachings of selecting optimum filter mode from a plurality of filtering mode into Chen filtering mode for the benefit of utilizing the best filtering scheme on a virtual boundary for reducing residual errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 40-41 and 47-49 is/are 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.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 40 discloses wherein the weighted contribution comprises 1/2^i, wherein i corresponds to an index of a position of the at least one pixel of the first area or the at least one pixel of the second area.
Claim 41 discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a target output of a target filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area; determine an actual output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area, when coding information of the first area or the coding information of the second area is not available to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the first area; determine a difference between the target output and the actual output; determine an initial output of filtering at least one pixel of the second area; and determine a final output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area, using the initial output offset at least partially with the difference; wherein the coding information of the second area comprises the final output of the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area.
Claim 47 discloses to: determine to perform filtering of at least one pixel of the second area with coding information of the first area derived from the second area or with the coding information of the first area set to at least one value, when the coding information of the first area is to be used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area, or determine to not perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area, when the coding information of the first area is to be used to perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area; disable filtering of at least one pixel of the second area up to a number of pixel positions from the virtual boundary; and perform the filtering of the at least one pixel of the second area up to a number of pixel positions form from the virtual boundary.
The closest prior arts Chen and Lim fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitation obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Philippe et al. (US 2013/0103408), discloses Adaptive Linear Predictive Coding/Decoding.
2. Koh et al. (US 2013/0070862), discloses video coding with optimum loop filter selection.
3. Lin et al. (US 2019/0297350), discloses sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering method for a reconstructed projection-based frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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 at (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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485