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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language, “[a] mechanism for processing video data is disclosed,” in the abstract recites legal phraseology and is requiring the reader to go into the specification for further detail. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2019/0320171 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 20, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a 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 recording medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a claimed 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 Zhang which recites in Paragraphs [0031] of memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200.
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.
Claims 1 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0320171 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Ma et al. (US 2022/0007015 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for processing video data [Abstract, device for coding video data, as processing video data] comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video comprising a picture and a bitstream of the video, to apply an adaptive bilateral filter (BF) process in addition to a BF process to samples of the picture [Paragraph [0101]-[0102], flag for bilateral filter may be signaled per CU/CU to indicate whether filtering is applied to prediction blocks], wherein parameters of the BF process are predefined [Paragraph [0074]-[0091], parameters for BF are predefined and controlled by equations (1) and (2)], and wherein a final output of the adaptive BF process in addition to the BF process is generated by a combination of multiple elements [Paragraph [0151]-[0154], Fig. 12, Output of bilateral filtering includes inverse quantization, transformation, and summation with prediction]; and
performing the conversion based on the final output of the adaptive BF process in addition to the BF process [Paragraph [0151]-[0154], Fig. 12, Entropy encoding the output from filtering].
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose parameters of the adaptive BF process are trained online.
Ma teaches of parameters of the adaptive BF process are trained online [Paragraph [0088], the filtering apparatus may further train the online portions of the offline filtering model 3 online by using the filtering result of the previous frame, that is, the online portions of the offline filtering model 3 are trained to obtain the parameter update information (i.e., online filtering parameters)].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instant invention to add the teachings of Iguchi as above, to improve a filtering performance of the filtering apparatus and have a wide application range (Ma, Paragraph [0003]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang and Ma disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream [Paragraph [0026], video encoding and decoding system 100].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang and Ma disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claims.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream [Paragraph [0026], video encoding and decoding system 100]..
Regarding claims 19, claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus for processing video data having limitations similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus claim 1 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 20, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim 20 corresponds to the method of using as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 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 2-16 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