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) was submitted on 02/06/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepin et al. (herein after will be referred to as Stepin) (US 20210127113) in view of Son et al. (herein after will be referred to as Son) (US 20190052875).
Regarding claim 1, Stepin discloses a method for decoding a video signal comprising:
reconstructing a plurality of samples in a current block of samples; applying a transform to a first set of samples, [See Stepin [Figs. 3A-3C and 0100-0106] Hadamard transform to reconstructed samples.]
including at least a subset of the reconstructed samples in the current block and at least one reconstructed sample outside the current block, to generate a set of spectrum components; [See Stepin [Fig. 4C and 0141-0143] the current block is padded by additional samples, wherein the padding samples are taken from already reconstructed blocks.]
applying a filter to at least one of the spectrum components to generate a set of filtered spectrum components, [See Stepin [Figs. 3A-3C and 0100-0106] Filter Hadamard transform samples.]
applying an inverse of the transform to the filtered spectrum components to generate a plurality of filtered samples corresponding to the first set of samples. [See Stepin [Figs. 3A-3C and 0100-0106] Inverse Hadamard transform samples.]
Stepin does not explicitly disclose
wherein a strength of the filter is position-dependent; and
However, Son does disclose
wherein a strength of the filter is position-dependent; and [See Son [0106] Due to the characteristics of intra-prediction, prediction accuracy with respect to a sample close to neighboring samples of the current block is higher than prediction accuracy with respect to a sample far from the neighboring samples of the current block. Accordingly, a weak filter (e.g., weak smoothing filter) can be applied to prediction samples within a specific distance from the neighboring samples of the current block and a strong filter (e.g., strong smoothing filter) can be applied to other samples. (Applicants published spec. para. 0105 states “Pred accuracy low – further away from reference samples – stronger filtering & Pred accuracy high – closer to reference samples – weaker filtering).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Stepin to add the teachings of Son, in order to improve upon image compression [See Son [0003]].
Regarding claim 2, Stepin (modified by Son) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Stepin does not explicitly disclose
wherein, according to the position-dependent filter strength, stronger filtering is applied at a bottom-right part of the current block and weaker filtering being applied to a left or top part of the current block.
However, Son does disclose
wherein, according to the position-dependent filter strength, stronger filtering is applied at a bottom-right part of the current block and weaker filtering being applied to a left or top part of the current block. [See Son [0106] Due to the characteristics of intra-prediction, prediction accuracy with respect to a sample close to neighboring samples of the current block is higher than prediction accuracy with respect to a sample far from the neighboring samples of the current block. Accordingly, a weak filter (e.g., weak smoothing filter) can be applied to prediction samples within a specific distance from the neighboring samples of the current block and a strong filter (e.g., strong smoothing filter) can be applied to other samples. (Applicants published spec. para. 0105 states “Pred accuracy low – further away from reference samples – stronger filtering & Pred accuracy high – closer to reference samples – weaker filtering).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Stepin (modified by Son) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Stepin discloses
wherein the transform is a Hadamard transform and the spectrum components are Hadamard spectrum components. [See Stepin [Figs. 3A-3C and 0100-0106] Hadamard transform to reconstructed samples. Spectrum components are also described.]
Regarding claim 4, Stepin (modified by Son) disclose the method of claim 3. Furthermore, Stepin discloses
wherein applying a filter to at least one of the Hadamard spectrum components comprises determining {Equation 1}, where R(i) is a Hadamard spectrum component and F(i, σ) is the corresponding filtered Hadamard spectrum component, m is a normalization constant, and σ is a filtering parameter, and wherein the normalization constant m is different at different sample positions in the current block. [See Stepin [Equation 1 and 2 in 0078-0082] Different spectrum components have different gain coefficients.]
Regarding claim 5, Stepin (modified by Son) disclose the method of claim 3. Furthermore, Stepin discloses
wherein applying a filter to at least one of the Hadamard spectrum components comprises determining {Equation 1}, where R(i) is a Hadamard spectrum component and F(i, σ) is the corresponding filtered Hadamard spectrum component, m is a normalization constant, and σ is a filtering parameter, and wherein the filtering parameter σ is different at different sample positions in the current block. [See Stepin [Equation 1 and 2 in 0078-0082] Different spectrum components have different filtering parameters.]
Regarding claim 6, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486