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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-14 & 2- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karczewicz et al. (US 2022/0201292 A1) (hereinafter Karczewicz).
Regarding claim 1, Karczewicz discloses a method for video decoding [Paragraph [0010], method of decoding video data], comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, one or more spatial neighboring samples associated with a current sample [Paragraph [0121]-[0123], For a reconstructed sample R(x, y), by using the reconstructed sample itself and neighboring samples, video decoder 300 may apply multiple filter sets]; and
obtaining, by the decoder and based on the one or more spatial neighboring samples, a filtered sample for the current sample [Paragraph [0121]-[0123], After the first stage, for each filter set and the corresponding classifier, an intermediately filtered signal R′ may be calculated].
Regarding claim 2, Karczewicz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more spatial neighboring samples are from at least one of prediction samples or reconstructed samples [Paragraph [0121]-[0123], For a reconstructed sample R(x, y), by using the reconstructed sample itself and neighboring samples, video decoder 300 may apply multiple filter sets], and wherein the reconstructed samples are samples prior to sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering [Paragraph [0104] & [0258], Fig. 17, Filter unit 312 includes SAO filter, filtering reconstructed video blocks].
Regarding claim 3, Karczewicz discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses of further comprising: obtaining, by the decoder, the filtered sample based on the one or more spatial neighboring samples and one or more filter coefficients [Paragraph [0121] & [0286], transposing filter coefficients], wherein the one or more filter coefficients are associated with different filter shapes [Paragraph [0080]-[0081], The filter shapes for ALF that were adopted in the joint exploration model (JEM) software were 5×5, 7×7, and 9×9 diamond shapes].
Regarding claim 4, Karczewicz discloses the method of claim 3, and further discloses of further comprising: obtaining, by the decoder, clipped difference based on the one or more spatial neighboring samples and the current sample; and
obtaining, by the decoder, the filtered sample based on the clipped difference and the one or more filter coefficients [Paragraph [0080]-[0087], The filter shapes for ALF that were adopted in the joint exploration model (JEM) software were 5×5, 7×7, and 9×9 diamond shapes].
Regarding claims (13-14), apparatus claims (13-14) are drawn to the apparatus using the method of the same as claimed in claims (1-2). Therefore apparatus claims (13-14) correspond to method claims (1-2), and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Karczewicz discloses an apparatus for video decoding, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations [Paragraph [0386]-[0389], hardware comprising non-transitory computer readable storage media with instructions executed by one or more processers].
Regarding claim 20, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20 corresponds to the method of using as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same rationale as listed above.
Furthermore, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by a decoding method,” … is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a claimed video bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Karczewicz which recites in Paragraph [0042] Furthermore, memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200 and input to video decoder 300.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 & 15-19 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.
Claims 5-12 & 15-19 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights