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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 10 and 11 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 10 and 11 recites both the SAO filter and CCSAO filter being enabled or disabled at the same time. However, in claim 1, the SAO filter and CCSAO filter are recited in the alternative, and the filter 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 the parent claim and the dependent claims renders the claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of two filters being used rather than one being selected in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026 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 § 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) 1-20 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).
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 10, Bordes et al. teaches the method of claim 1, 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 (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 a 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 has similar limitations as those rejected above. This claims 1-4, and 12 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).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims 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 “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the 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. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Bordes et al. discloses 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 (Paragraph 62).
Further, claim 20 contains similar limitations as those rejected above in claims 1 and 18 and would be rejected in the same way if above issues were corrected.
Conclusion
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