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 Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claim 10 has been cancelled, and new claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 12, and 18-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, applicant argues that “’the filter comprises one of a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter and a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter’ relates to the derivation of the parameters of the filter but does not limit whether the SAO filter and the CCSAO filter can be enabled or disabled at the same time”. And that this overcomes the issue of indefiniteness. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is explicitly claimed the claim recites “the filter comprises one of a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter and a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter” (emphasis added). As claimed, this clearly states that the FILTER itself is only one of an SAO filter or a CCSAO filter. Since the filter may only be one of the SAO or CCSAO, this does clearly and unambiguously limit whether the SAO filter and the CCSAO filter can be enabled or disabled at the same time. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection is maintained and the claims it covers have expanded to reflect the amended claims.
Thus, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “whether the SAO filter and the CCSAO filter can be enabled or disabled at the same time”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that Bordes et al. fails to teach “whether a syntax element indicating whether the CCSAO filter is enabled is signalled in the bitstream depends on a syntax element indicating whether the SAO filter is enabled”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 3, Bordes et al. teaches “The SAO filtering comprises adding offsets to some reconstructed samples in order to reduce coding artifacts, e.g. ringing or banding artifact. Two types of filtering may be performed when the SAO filtering is enabled (or activated): Edge Offset (EO) type or Band Offset (BO) type. The SAO filtering reduces sample distortion by first classifying the samples of one CTB (Coding Tree Block) into multiple categories and adding a specific offset to each sample depending on its category. Sets of SAO parameters (a set of SAO parameters comprising for example offsets, possibly offsets signs, filter type, etc) for each color component are thus determined on the encoder side and encoded at a CTU (Coding Tree Unit) level after other syntax elements of the CTU. In order to save bandwidth SAO parameters are not necessarily encoded for each CTU. A CTU may thus inherit its SAO parameters from a neighboring CTU.” In Paragraph 84, Bordes et al. teaches “In HEVC, SAO filtering may be activated or de-activated at video level, slice level and CTB level. Two SAO modes are specified: edge offset (EO) and band offset (BO). For EO, the sample classification is based on local directional structures in the picture to be filtered. For BO, the sample classification is based on sample values. The parameters for EO or BO may be explicitly coded or derived from the neighborhood (merge up or merge left). SAO can be applied to the luma and chroma components, where the SAO mode is the same for Cb and Cr components. The SAO parameters are configured individually for each color component. More precisely, a set of SAO parameters (i.e. the offsets, the SAO types EO, BO and inactivated, the class in case of EO and the band position in case of BO) is encoded at a CTU level.” This clearly teaches that SAO modes may be shared across components, thus they are interpreted to be cross component SAO filters. In Paragraph 85, Bordes et al. further teaches “In the case where SAO filtering is activated for a CTB, the samples in the CTB are categorized into NC categories, e.g. NC=5 in HEVC. For sample s in category c(s), the sample can be adjusted to s=s+off(c(s)), where off(n) is the offset value of category n. In HEVC, the offsets values of only 4 (=NC−1) categories are decoded from the bitstream, the other offset values being set to 0. For BO, absolute offset values and signs are decoded. For EO, only absolute offset values are decoded, the signs being inferred from the category (positive sign for categories 1 and 2, and negative sign for categories 3 and 4).” In Paragraph 102, it teaches “SaoTypeIdx[cIdx][idxCand] specifies the offset type (0 Not applied, Band offset or Edge Offset) for the candidate set idxCand for the colour component cIdx. As an example, a value 0 indicates that the SAO filtering is not applied, a value 1 indicates that the SAO filtering is applied with Band offset and a value 2 indicates that the SAO filtering is applied with Edge Offset. SaoTypeIdx[cIdx][idxCand] is derived from sao_type_idx_luma and sao_type_idx_chroma syntax elements. SaoTypeIdx[0][idxCand] is set equal to sao_type_idx_luma and SaoTypeIdx[cIdx][idxCand] is set equal to sao_type_idx_chroma for cIdx=1 or 2.” Which clearly teaches selectively enabling or disabling SAO filtering based on syntax elements.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
In this case, claim 15 depends on claim 2, claim 8 depends on claim 6, which are separated by dependent claims which are not depended on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 recite that the filter comprises ONE of a SAO filter and a CCSAO filter. Then the claim as amended recites both the SAO filter and CCSAO filter being enabled or disabled at the same time. The filter as is explicitly claimed, is selected to be only one of them “the filter comprises one of a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter and a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter”. This incongruity between these limitations renders the claims indefinite. As explicitly claimed, the filter only comprises one of a SAO or CCSAO. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-20 recite the broad recitation the enabled filter may be either of CCSAO or SAO, and the claim also recites “the filter comprises one of a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter and a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, only one of the SAO or CCSAO filters is required and any reference to both filters being enabled or disabled is not given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bordes et al. (US 20200169730 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bordes et al. teaches a method for processing video data (Paragraph 1), comprising:
deriving, during a conversion between a video comprising a video unit and a bitstream of the video (Paragraph 55), parameters of a filter for the video unit from at least one predefined set and/or at least one adaptive set, wherein the filter comprises one of a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter and a cross-component SAO (CCSAO) filter (Paragraphs 5-13; Paragraphs 16-34; Paragraph 83-85); and
performing the conversion based on the parameters of the filter (Paragraph 8),
wherein whether a syntax element indicating whether the CCSAO filter is enabled is signalled in the bitstream depends on a syntax element indicating whether the SAO filter is enabled (Paragraphs 3-13; Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 2, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters of the filter comprise parameters used for derivation of classification, and/or offsets for different categories (Paragraphs 83-85).
Regarding Claim 3, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adaptive set comprises parameters in a set which are derived adaptively or signalled explicitly in the bitstream (Paragraphs 5-13; Paragraph 8, “encoding in a bitstream the plurality of candidate sets of filter parameters, the blocks of the picture part and the index for each block”; Paragraphs 16-34; Paragraph 83-85).
Regarding Claim 4, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a syntax element signalled in the bitstream is used to indicate which set is used to derive the parameters of the filter for the video unit (Paragraphs 94-95).
Regarding Claim 5, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of: a number of the at least one predefined set, a maximum number of the at least one predefined set, a number of the at least one adaptive set, or a maximum number of the at least one adaptive set is signalled in the bitstream, is pre-defined, or is derived depending on coding information (Paragraphs 5-13; Paragraphs 16-34; Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-95).
Regarding Claim 6, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one adaptive set of parameters is signalled at a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level (Paragraph 84).
Regarding Claim 7, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one adaptive set of parameters is included in a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a decoding parameter set (DPS), decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter set (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header (Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98).
Regarding Claim 8, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an adaptive set of parameters used for the SAO filter is included in an adaptation parameter set (APS) or a picture header, and wherein an adaptive set of parameters used for the CCSAO filter is included in an adaptation parameter set (APS) (Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98).
Regarding Claim 9, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a syntax element in a first adaptation parameter set (APS) is signaled to indicate whether an adaptive set of parameters for the SAO filter and/or the CCSAO filter is included in the first APS, wherein the syntax element is represented as aps_params_type (Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 11, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the CCSAO filter is disabled for a component when the SAO filter is disabled for the component (Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 12, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein whether the syntax element indicating whether the CCSAO filter is enabled is signalled in the bitstream is dependent on a color format (Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 13, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the CCSAO filter is disabled when the color format is 4:0:0 (Paragraph 51; Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 14, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the color format is 4:2:0, or 4:2:2, or 4:4:4 (Paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 15, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determination of the classification and/or the offsets is different for different color formats (Paragraph 51; Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding Claim 16, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 17, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Paragraph 154).
Apparatus claims 18-19 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of claims 1-4 and 12, and have similar limitations as those rejected above. Thus claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Bordes et al. further teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising: a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method (Paragraphs 56-62; Paragraph 142).
Method claim 20 is drawn to the method for storing a bitstream associated with apparatus claim 18 and method for processing of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Bordes et al. further teaches a method for storing a bitstream of a video; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Paragraph 62).
Regarding Claim 21, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters of the filter comprise parameters used for derivation of classification, and/or offsets for different categories, wherein the adaptive set comprises parameters in a set which are derived adaptively or signalled explicitly in the bitstream, wherein a syntax element signalled in the bitstream is used to indicate which set is used to derive the parameters of the filter for the video unit, and wherein whether the syntax element indicating whether the CCSAO filter is enabled is signalled in the bitstream depends on a color format (Paragraph 51; Paragraph 83-85; Paragraphs 94-98; Paragraphs 101-103).
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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights