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 . 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2021 and 09/28/2021 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other because:
The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 2, 9 and 16 of the current application can be read on limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 4,11 and 18 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 4, 11 and 18 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 5, 12 and 19 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 5, 12 and 19 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 6, 13 and 20 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 6, 13 and 20 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 7 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 7 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
The limitation of claim 14 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 14 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claims 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 is not patentably distinct from claim 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,743 B2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6,8-10, 13, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. (US. Pub No. 2015/0016512 A1) in view of IWAMURA et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0014527 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pu teaches a method of video decoding ([Fig. 2 and abstract]-decoding method ), comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture, the current picture being part of an encoded video sequence, the prediction information indicating a plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples and corresponding output values of a filtering process ([para 0122]-"Video encoder 20 may form a residual video block by determining differences between prediction data (e.g., a predictive block) from mode select unit 40 and data from an original video block (e.g., a coding block) being coded,"); performing the filtering process on processed reconstructed samples of a first color component of the current block ([para 0093]- In some examples where a CU has a 4:2:2 chroma subsampling format, a video coder may be configured to utilize a filtered version of the residual luma samples to produce updated residual chroma samples), the processed reconstructed samples of the first color not being included in the plurality of combinations of the processed reconstructed samples indicated in the prediction information ([para 022]- The video coder individually codes (i.e. encodes or decodes) each of the blocks. Encoding a block of video data generally Involves encoding an original block of data by generating one or more predictive blocks for the original block, and a residual block that corresponds to differences between the original block and the one or more predictive blocks. Specifically, the original block of video data includes a matrix of pixel values, which are made up of one or more channels of "samples," and the predictive block includes a matrix of predicted pixel values, each of which are also made of predictive samples. Each sample of a residual block indicates a pixel value difference between a sample of a predictive block and a corresponding sample of the original block," ; [para 0025 ]-"The YCbCr color representation generally refers to a color representation in which each pixel of video data Is represented by three components or channels of color information, "Y," "Cb," and "Cr." The Y channel represents luminance (i.e., light intensity or brightness) data for a particular pixel. The Cb and Cr components are the blue-difference and red-difference chrominance, i.e., "chroma," components, respectively. YCbCr is often used to represent color in compressed video data because there is strong decorrelation between each of the Y, Cb, and Cr components, meaning that there is little data that is duplicated or redundant among each of the Y, Cb, and Cr components,"); determining an output value of the filter process based on one of: a default value, a predicted output value, and one of the output values indicated in the prediction information ([para 0035-0036]- During video encoding and decoding a video coder may determine a predictive block of video data using inter- or intra-prediction. Based on the predictive block of video data, a video coder may determine a residual block of video data, which may include differences between the predictive block and the corresponding samples of an original video block, e.g., on the encoder side. On the decoder side, the residual block of video data includes differences between the predictive block and the corresponding samples of the final video block that are output for display. In particular, the residual block of video data may be added to the predictive block to reconstruct the original block of video data); and reconstructing the current block based on the output value being applied to reconstructed samples of a second color component of the current block, the second color component being different from the first color component ([see in Fig. 1-2, 5 and para [0035 ;0206]-" para 0035 discloses the residual block of video data may be added to the predictive block to reconstruct the original block of video data," ; "FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a process for transforming video data having an RGB color space to video data having a second color space using a color transform in accordance with one or more aspects of this disclosure. For purposes of illustration only, the method of FIG. 5 may be performed by a video encoder, such as a video encoder corresponding to video decoder 30 of FIGS. 1 and 2).
However, Pu does not explicitly disclose the prediction information indicating a plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples and corresponding output values of a filter process.
In an analogous art, IWAMURA teaches the prediction information indicating a plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples and corresponding output values of a filtering process ([para 0040]- The combiner 105 combines the restored prediction residual input from the inverse transformer 104b with the prediction image input from the switcher 110 in a pixel unit. The combiner 105 reconstructs the target image block by adding respective pixel values of the restored prediction residual and respective pixel values of the prediction image and outputs the reconstructed image which is the reconstructed target image block to the intra predictor 106 and the loop filter 107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of IWAMURA to the modified system of Pu to provide an image encoding device, an image decoding device and a program that can improve encoding efficiency in a case of performing motion compensation prediction using a plurality of reference images [IWAMURA ;paragraph 0006].
Regarding claim 2, Pu teaches wherein the determining comprises determining one of a first value, and a second value as the output value of the filtering process, the first value being one of the output values indicated in the prediction information, and the second value being the inverse of the first value ([para 0164]- Motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may be configured to derive a sign of the scale factor without video encoder 20 having explicitly signaled the sign of the scale factor in the coded video bitstream. For example, video encoder 20 may have signaled the signs of the residual blocks of luma samples in a coded video bitstreams. Motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may determine the sign of the scale factor from either of the signs of the residual blocks of luma samples. In another example, motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may only select the sign of the scale factor value as the opposite of either of the two signs of the residual luma sample blocks).
Regarding claim 3, Pu teaches wherein each of the processed reconstructed samples of the first color component is the inverse of a corresponding processed reconstructed sample in one of the plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples indicated in the prediction information, and one of the output values indicated in the prediction information corresponds to the one of the plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples indicated in the prediction information ([para 0164]- Motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may be configured to derive a sign of the scale factor without video encoder 20 having explicitly signaled the sign of the scale factor in the coded video bitstream. For example, video encoder 20 may have signaled the signs of the residual blocks of luma samples in a coded video bitstreams. Motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may determine the sign of the scale factor from either of the signs of the residual blocks of luma samples. In another example, motion compensation unit 72 and/or intra-prediction unit 7 4 may only select the sign of the scale factor value as the opposite of either of the two signs of the residual luma sample blocks).
Regrading claim 6, Pu teaches wherein the prediction output value is determined from a filter processed output value that is applied to another coding block based on the filter processed output value. ([para 0004]- In an intra-coded (I) slice of a picture are encoded using spatial prediction with respect to reference samples in neighboring blocks in the same picture. Video blocks in an inter-coded (P or B) slice of a picture may use spatial prediction with respect to reference samples in neighboring blocks in the same picture or temporal prediction with respect to reference samples in other reference pictures).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 8 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 15 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14,18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of IWAMURA as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of TAQUET JONATHAN et al. (WO 2020182620 A1; pub. Sept. 17, 2020; given the applicant in the IDS; hereinafter as Jonathan).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pu and IWAMURA don’t explicitly disclose wherein a sum of an index of the processed reconstructed sample of the first color component in a mapping table of the filtering process and an index of the one of the output values indicated in the prediction information in the mapping table of the filtering process is equal to a maximum index of the mapping table.
In an analogous art, Jonathan teaches wherein a sum of an index of the processed reconstructed sample of the first color component in a mapping table of the filtering process and an index of the one of the output values indicated in the prediction information in the mapping table of the filtering process is equal to a maximum index of the mapping table([see pg. 51 ]- In some variants, the authorized/allowable/available clipping parameter values for the Chroma filter are not the same as those for the Luma filters. According to a variant, the minimum index in the table pmin and the maximum index in the table pmax which are used for the clipping parameters in the slice are provided in the slice header so that the number of possible clipping parameter values can be restricted/limited when signaling them”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Jonathan to the modified system of Pu and IWAMURA benefit from systems and methods adapted for output values equal to maximum index values, because such systems and methods allow for using maximum index values from mapping tables as parameters for video coding [Jonathan; pg. 51, line 7-11].
Regarding claim 5, Jonathan teaches wherein the determining comprises determining the default value as the output value of the filter process based on the prediction information indicating that the plurality of combinations of processed reconstructed samples indicated in the prediction information are a subset of a total number of combinations of processed reconstructed samples in the filtering process ([pg. 109]- It associates each Luma filter set alternative 2003a or each Chroma filter alternative 2003b with a preferably different/disjoint subset of the CTBs to perform a first filter(s) optimization for each Luma filter set alternative or Chroma filter alternative with the samples of its associated subset of CTBs (this first fiiter(s) optimization corresponds to the first iteration of step 3, i.e."3.a.i)" &"3.a.ii)" below),").
Regarding claim 7, Jonathan teaches wherein the processed reconstructed samples of the first color component are determined based on reconstructed samples of the first color component output from a first encoding module, and the reconstructed samples of the second color component are output from the first encoding module or from a second encoding module applied after the first encoding module ([pg. 52]- the ALF filtering on Luma is also applied independent of the ALF filtering on Chroma, and this is illustrated by the block diagram showing two separate processes for each component (which may run in parallel or in series).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Li et al., US 2016/0261884 A1, discloses Method adaptive encoding and decoding for units of a video sequence can improve coding efficiency.
2. Joshi et. al., US 2015/0341673 A1, discloses palette-based video coding.
3. ICHIGAYA et al., US. 2021/0014481 A1, discloses an image encoding device, an image decoding device and a program.
4. MISHRA et al., US 2021/0105506 A1, disclose video coding and more particularly to techniques for performing deblocking of reconstructed video data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487