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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that the Claim language does not appear to recite all the details that Applicant interprets into them in the arguments. An examiner interview can be scheduled if Applicant requires assistance in claiming at the intended level of detail.
Regarding section 101, Applicant argues: “On page 3, the Office Action suggests that an adaptive loop filter (ALF) is not limited to a specific filtering function. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that ALF is a well-known and concrete technical concept in the field of video coding, not a mere mathematical concept. For example, the Applicants' specification at paragraph [0152] explains that the ALF is specifically designed to minimize the mean square error …”
Examiner notes that (a) Applicant fails to cite evidence of “one of ordinary skill in the art,” (b) a concept is an abstract idea even when Applicant describes it as a “concrete concept,” but most materially (c) ALF is a mathematical operation recited by the claim, which is an abstract idea according to the most recent guidance in view of Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567.
Examiner suggests elaborating on the “conversion” performed by the claims and on the manner in which the “first syntax element is signaled,” to involve particular compassion operations and syntax which can be related to a practical application.
Applicant argues: “The claims are directed to a technological improvement in video processing, which falls outside the realm of abstract ideas.”
Examiner notes that the claims lack critical detail about the practical application. The claims recite applying a mathematical operation to data but seem to be vague as to how this applies to video processing. Processing a mathematical operation without a concrete practical application falls short of eligibility. See suggestions above.
Applicant argues: “For example, claim I explicitly limits the process to applying the ALF to filter a current sample, and utilizing non-adjacent reconstructed samples …”
Examiner notes that describing limitations of a mathematical function or data does not direct the claims to a practical application. See suggestions above.
Applicant argues: “Further, the Office Action appears to misinterpret the function of "the first syntax element." This syntax element does not control whether ALF filtering is performed; rather, the claimed syntax element determines whether to enable an extended tap for the ALF (i.e., enabling an enhanced, more efficient tap).”
Examiner notes that the syntax element is directed to data but not to a particular data structure that modifies a particular signal linked to a particular practical application. This does not change the nature of the claims as reciting a mathematical operation performed on data. As noted above, Applicant could elaborate on the particular data structures and signal being created by the claims.
Applicant argues: “Third, under step 2B, the Applicants respectfully submit that the present claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. For example, claim I recites the use of an "online-trained filter" and dynamically enabling extended taps based on a syntax element.”
Examiner notes that (a) a product-by-process limitation does not impart a particular patentable distinction on the claimed filter, and (b) neither the claims nor the Specification define what it means to be “online-trained,” or that it could result in a patentable distinction if recited as a method step.
Applicant argues: “By employing an online-trained filter with adaptive tap extension, the present claims provide a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer system itself by enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of video processing. This is not merely applying a generic computer to an abstract idea, but rather a specific technical implementation that improves the technology of video encoding/decoding.”
This appears to be directed to a prior art rejection which is addressed below in view of AAPA. Further, reciting this conclusion without a specific understanding of that “an online-trained filter with adaptive tap extension” means is not persuasive. Examiner suggests claiming particularly defined features that Specification links to the specific intended improvements, Applicant can begin with elaborating how the claimed operations apply to video compression under the VVC.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “Thus, claim 1 requires that the method use an online-trained filter (more specifically comprising an ALF) to process a non-adjacent reconstruction sample, and also that a first syntax element be signaled to indicate whether at least one extended tap is enabled for the ALF.”
Examiner notes that Applicant makes this statement without demonstrating an understanding of what an online-trained filter means in the context of the Specification. This language does not clearly distinguish the claimed operations over what is performed by the prior art. See the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “First, the Applicants note that neither AAPA nor Hu signals a syntax element to indicate whether an extended tap is enabled for an ALF.”
Examiner notes that the claims do not limit what the syntax is or what differentiates extended tap over non-extended tap. As noted in the reasons for rejection below “An index is signalled at the picture level to indicate the filter shape” and that includes smaller shapes and larger shapes that are extended in comparison. More importantly this is an embodiment supported by the Specification, Paragraph 191. See updated reasons for rejection below.
If Applicant desires a more specific claim construction, Applicant should claim additional detail that clarifies the intended claim construction.
Applicant argues: “Indeed, the claimed "extended tap" is a tap distinct from spatial taps. The term "extended tap" refers to a specific mechanism designed to break the limitations of traditional spatial taps, thereby improving filtering performance beyond local constraints.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s Representative appears to state a personal opinion without citing support in the Specification. The reasons for rejection do cite embodiments in the Specification and thus they are directly relevant to the claimed language.
Applicant argues: “Second, claim 1 also requires using "an online-trained filter." MFA and Hu are limited to traditional ALF, and thus do not involve an online-trained filter. The term "online-trained filter" refers to a filter whose coefficients are trained in real-time, rather than merely being a selectable filter.”
Examiner notes that this interpretation states Applicant’s Representatives own opinion but this detail does not appear to be recited in the Claims or supported in the Specification. Examiner suggests claiming particular features in a language that can be readily verified in the Specification.
Drawings
Examiner withdraws the objection to Figures 1-12 in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50) and in view of Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567. See Examiner recommendations at the end of the analysis below.
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to data and to mathematical operations on the data: “inputting the non-adjacent reconstruction sample … inputting the non-adjacent reconstruction sample … video and a bitstream of the video … processing video data … conversion between the video and a and a bitstream of the video … the ALF is applied to filter the current sample” where ALF is not limited to a specific filtering function and not required to be performed (i.e. may be disabled as indicated in original dependent Claim 10).
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (video data, a non-adjacent reconstruction sample, the video and a bitstream of the video), collecting information (obtaining a non-adjacent reconstruction sample); outputting information (), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF.,, … conversion includes encoding the video, conversion includes decoding the video … first syntax element is signaled). In particular, since the bitstream of a video is a video, the claimed conversion of the video based on the ALF does not appear to embody more than applying a mathematical operation to the data of the video. i.e. a filter operation.
These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the most recent guidance in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567 and it is consistent with the guidance of the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF … a processor; and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon … A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (the claims of ALF and conversion of data are too generic to describe a specific improvement to a specific technology); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (a general purpose processor and storage media are not particular machines); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (conversion of data at a high degree of generality is not a transformation of an article).
This is evidenced in that the Claims indicate that the application of the claimed ALF functionality is not required “when the ALF is applied to filter the current sample of the picture … wherein a first syntax element is signalled to indicate whether a filter with at least one extended tap is enabled.” See Claims 1, 19, 20, and 10. Also note that dependent Claim 17 “conversion includes encoding the video” and Claim 18 “conversion includes decoding the video,” which are different applications and indicate that the abstract processes of the claims are indifferent to the application in which they can ultimately be used. This is evidence that the claims are not particularly limited to a practical application.
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a processor, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining, analyzing, transforming, or outputting information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. conversion between video and bitstream at a high degree of generality).
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972) (using common computing elements in conversion of numerical information is ineligible); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Using profiles in a digital image processing system is ineligible); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Encoding and decoding of an image is an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information, and addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into other forms of data cannot render it patent eligible).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality (performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF.).
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Examiner recommends claiming particular steps that define the data being filtered (i.e. pixel block boundaries), define ALF filtering and apply the ALF filtering to perform encoding and separately apply the ALF filtering to perform decoding under the VVC standard. These are likely different applications. Examiner also recommends incorporating elements of new or changed syntax into the independent claims as elements of distinction from the prior art.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. In describing an invention, Applicant must inevitably reference that which is known in the art as the basis for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his own invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int ’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP 2129.
Claims 1-9, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in the Specification in view of US 20230300328 to Hu (“Hu”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method of processing video data, comprising:
obtaining a non-adjacent reconstruction sample of a current sample in a picture of a video; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “wherein the position of the non-adjacent reconstruction sample of the picture is given by (x + h, y) … (x, y + v), … (x + h, y + v), wherein h and v are positive integers.” See original dependent claims 3-4. AAPA in the Specification teaches this as various filter shapes that cover various such pixels in Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 191. See similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16.)
inputting the non-adjacent reconstruction sample of the picture as an input for an online-trained filter which comprises an adaptive loop filter (ALF), wherein the ALF is applied to filter the current sample of the picture; and (See various such adjacent and non-adjacent pixels input into ALF filters in AAPA, Specification, Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 191. Specification does not define what an online-trained filter is, however AAPA indicates that these are the types of filters that were considered by the prior art. See AAPA, Specificaiton 226-228. See similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16. Also note that patentability of the filter does not depend on the method of its production. See Claim Construction above.)
wherein a first syntax element is signaled to indicate whether at least one extended tap is enabled for the ALF.” (“In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … An index is signalled at the picture level to indicate the filter shape “ AAPA, Specificaiton, Paragraph 191 and similarly in Hu, Paragraph 76. Thus, the selection between the lower or extended tap filters is signaled. Cumulatively note other embodiments where the ALF can be signaled as a smaller 5-pixel filter [existing spatial tap] or signaled as an extended to a 7 or a 9-tap filter, thus indicating an extended tap. See AAPA, Specification, Fig. 10. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected.” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 191. See similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16.)
AAPA does not explicitly describe: “performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF.” However, this conversion is implicit in performing the claimed conversion by applying the ALF by the HEVC and VVC coding standards as noted in Specification, Paragraphs 4 and described in AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 93, Fig. 2.
Cumulatively, Hu teaches this application in the context of applying ALF filters in HEVC and VVC standards as noted in Hu, Paragraphs 29, 35. Figs 17-18.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of AAPA to perform a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF as taught in Hu, in order to apply video coding based on the video coding standards such as the HEVC and VVC. Hu, Paragraphs 29, 35. Figs 17-18.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein a position of the non-adjacent reconstruction sample of the picture has a distance to a position of the current sample of the picture, and wherein the position of the current sample of the picture is denoted as (x, y), wherein x and y are integers.” (See pixels arranged with x-y pixel coordinates in Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 191. See similarly in Hu and Figs. 6, 7, 15-16 where “the center square of filter 190 is the position of a current, to-be-filtered sample.” Hu, Paragraphs 100-101.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 2, wherein the position of the non-adjacent reconstruction sample of the picture is given by (x + h, y), wherein h is a positive integer.” (See filter pixels arranged with x-y pixel coordinates offset from the center pixels in horizontal direction, vertical direction, or both in Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 191. See similarly in Hu and Figs. 6, 7, 15-16 and Paragraphs 100-101 where “four filter tap locations of filter 190 are above or below VB 192”.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 2, wherein the position of the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is given by (x, y + v), wherein v is a positive integer.” (See filter pixels arranged with x-y pixel coordinates offset from the center pixels in horizontal direction, vertical direction, or both in Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 191. See similarly in Hu and Figs. 6, 7, 15-16 and Paragraphs 100-101 where “four filter tap locations of filter 190 are above or below VB 192”.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 2, wherein the position of the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is given by (x + h, y + v), wherein h an v are positive integers.” (See filter pixels arranged with x-y pixel coordinates offset from the center pixels in horizontal direction, vertical direction, or both in Figures 9 -12. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … In VVC, the 7x7 diamond shape is always used for Luma …” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 191. See similarly in Hu and Figs. 6, 7, 15-16 and Paragraphs 100-101 where “four filter tap locations of filter 190 are above or below VB 192”.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is located in a same coding tree unit (CTU), coding tree block (CTB), or virtual unit ” (“In VVC, the deblocking filtering process is applied on CU boundaries … implemented on a CTB-by-CTB basis … The vertical and horizontal edges in the CTBs of each CTU are processed separately on a coding unit basis” AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 113-114, and filter pixels taken from the same block or a neighboring block in Figs. 8-9. See similarly in Hu Paragraph 98, and Figs. 7.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is located in a different CTU, CTB, or virtual unit ” (See filter pixels taken from the same block or a neighboring block in AAPA, Specification, Figs. 8-9. Similarly, “For example, the neighboring sample is located in a neighboring CTU across slice/tile boundaries,” in Hu Paragraphs 98, 54, and Figs. 7.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein the ALF comprises at least one extended tap and at least one existing spatial tap.” (For example, ALF can be a smaller 5-pixel filter [existing spatial tap] or extended to a 7 or a 9-tap filter [extended tap]. See AAPA, Specification, Fig. 10. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected.” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 191. See similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein the ALF comprises at least one extended tap, and wherein the ALF is only applied to filter a luma component of the current sample.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 8. Further, as noted in AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 191: “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected for the luma component.” See similarly in Hu, Paragraph 76 and Figs. 6, 15-16.)
Regarding Claim 10 (Cancelled): “The method of claim 1, wherein a first syntax element is signalled to indicate whether a filter with at least one extended tap is enabled.” (“In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected … An index is signalled at the picture level to indicate the filter shape “ AAPA, Specificaiton, Paragraph 191 and similarly in Hu, Paragraph 76. Thus, the selection between the lower or extended tap filters is signaled.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first syntax element is binarized with unary code, truncated unary code, fixed-length code, exponential Golomb code, or truncated exponential Golomb code.” (“an example filter 142, which is a 5x5 diamond shape filter. In each of filters 140 and 142, an integer coefficient c; is represented with 7-bit fractional precision. The absolute value of c; is coded by using a 0th order Exp-Golomb code followed by a sign bit … All the coefficients applied to samples before DBF (resp. SAO) may be coded with the same processes. For example, fixed length coding, unary coding, kth order expGolomb code with k signaled or fixed (for example, the absolute values are coded with exp-Golomb code and sign is coded with another bit).” Hu, Paragraphs 77, 166-167. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method of claim 1,
wherein the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is provided as an input to a classifier for the online-trained filter of the ALF, (“3.8.3. Classification for ALF Each 2x2 ( or 4x4) block [having non-adjacent samples] is categorized into one out of 25 classes. The classification index C is derived based on its directionality D and a quantized value of activity A.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 192-194 and similarly in Hu, Paragraph 83. Note that AAPA describes these as “online-trained filters.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 227.)
wherein the classifier is a gradient-based classifier or a band-based classifier for an online-filter of the ALF.” (“3.8.3. Classification for ALF Each 2x2 ( or 4x4) block is categorized into one out of 25 classes. The classification index C is derived based on its directionality D and a quantized value of activity A as follows: … To calculate D and A gradients of the horizontal, vertical and two diagonal direction …” AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 192-194 and similarly in Hu, Paragraph 83.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 8,
wherein the existing spatial tap is a spatial tap of an online-trained filter of the ALF, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, an online-filter is a filter selected from available types of filters. Prior art provides a selection where, ALF can be a smaller 5-pixel filter [existing spatial tap] or extended to a 7 or a 9-tap filter [extended tap]. See AAPA, Specification, Fig. 10. For example, “In the JEM, up to three diamond filter shapes (as shown in FIG. 10) can be selected.” See AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 191. See similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16.)
and wherein the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is provided as an input for the spatial tap of the online-trained filter of the ALF.” (As illustrated in AAPA, Specification Fig. 10 and similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16 and Paragraphs 77, 97, the filters operate on the inputs comprising the center sample and on various non-adjacent reconstructed samples covered by the filter shape as discussed in Claim 1 rejection. Note that AAPA describes these as “online-trained filters.” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 227.)
Regarding Claim 14. “The method of claim 1, wherein a luma output of the ALF is produced based on luma components of one or more non-adjacent reconstruction samples.” (See “Deblocking Decision for Luma Component” in AAPA, Specification, Paragraphs 119-121, 128 and similarly in Hu Paragraphs 77, 97.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 1,
wherein the non-adjacent reconstruction sample is provided as an input to an in-loop filter, (As illustrated in AAPA, Specification Fig. 10 and similarly in Hu, Figs. 6, 15-16 and Paragraphs 77, 97, the filters operate on the inputs comprising the center sample and on various non-adjacent reconstructed samples covered by the filter shape as discussed in Claim 1 rejection.)
wherein the in-loop filter comprises at least one of: a cross-component ALF (CCALF), a bilateral filter or a chroma bilateral filter.”
Regarding Claim 16: “The method of claim 1,
wherein a syntax element structure contains information of one or more ALFs with at least one extended tap, (“The filter shapes for ALF that were adopted in the joint exploration model (JEM) software were 5x5, 7x7, and 9x9 diamond shapes. The filter shape can be selected and signaled at a picture level in JEM.” Here, the larger filters can be signaled as filters having extended taps. See Hu, Paragraphs 76-77. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the syntax element structure contains at least one of: coefficients of the at least one extended tap, clipping parameters of the at least one extended tap, and class merging results of the at least one extended tap, and (“In each of filters 140 and 142, an integer coefficient c; is represented with 7- bit fractional precision. The absolute value of c; is coded by using a 0th order Exp-Golomb code followed by a sign bit” Hu, Paragraph 77, 166-167. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the syntax element structure is an adaptive parameter sequence (APS).” (“Syntax-wise, filter coefficients are sent in a picture level header called adaptation parameter set” AAPA, Specification, Paragraph 152 and similarly in Hu, Paragraph 162.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream.” (“The video devices may transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently by implementing such video coding techniques. … Video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream including encoded video data.” Hu, Paragraphs 3, 35-36. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 18: “The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream.” (“The video devices may transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently by implementing such video coding techniques. … Video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream including encoded video data. … e.g., output from video encoder 200 and input to video decoder 300.” Hu, Paragraphs 3, 35-36. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 19: “An apparatus for processing video data, comprising:” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches:
“a processor; and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon,” (“Additionally or alternatively, memories 106, 120 may store software instructions executable by, e.g., video encoder 200 and video decoder 300, respectively. … Video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 each may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable encoder and/or decoder circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs ),” Hu, Paragraphs 36 46. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 20, “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches: “Source device 102 may then output the encoded video data via output interface 108 onto computer-readable medium 110 for reception and/or retrieval” Hu, Paragraph 35. See statement of motivation in Claim 1. Cumulatively note that “a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method” is a product claimed by the process of generating it, and "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).)
Claim 21 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the Claim 19 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights