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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 7/7/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). Examiner fully addresses below any arguments that were not rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1-3 Applicant argues that an ordinarily-skilled person who reads the entirety of the applicant's specification will note that the paragraph that precedes paragraph 0037, i.e., paragraph 0036, reads, in relevant part, "the filter deciding units 37 and 38 decide whether or not a filter is to be applied to the boundary." Accordingly, read in its entirety, and when not limited to merely paragraph 0037, the specification fully supports the language of the claims, including the language regarding the deciding unit being configured to decide whether or not a blocking filter is to be applied.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1-3, Examiner contends the applicant did not specify any relevant part of ¶0036 (describing the first embodiment of the invention) that provide adequate support to overcome the 112(a) rejection.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejections.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/922,437 and 18/208,208, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In claim 1, “to decide whether or not a deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary detected by the detection unit, wherein if a first size of a first transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks or a second size of a second transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the deciding unit decides that the deblocking filter is to be applied to the decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary”; and
In claims 2 and 3, “deciding whether or not a deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the detected boundary, wherein if a first size of a first transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks or a second size of a second transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the deciding includes deciding that the deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the detected boundary”.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 15/922,437 & 18/208,208, filed 03/15/2018 & 07/27/2016, respectively, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where the claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the following claim limitations in the parent applications as filed:
“to decide whether or not a deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary detected by the detection unit, wherein if a first size of a first transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks or a second size of a second transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the deciding unit decides that the deblocking filter is to be applied to the decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary” (claim 1);
“deciding whether or not a deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the detected boundary, wherein if a first size of a first transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks or a second size of a second transform block of the two adjacent transform blocks is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the deciding includes deciding that the deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the detected boundary” (claims 2-3).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung-Hye Min et al. [US 20110170610 A1: already of record] in view of Geert Van der Auwera et al. [US 20130094572 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Min teaches:
1. A moving image processing apparatus (i.e. A method and apparatus for encoding video by using deblocking filtering- Abstract…Hereinafter, a video encoding apparatus, a video decoding apparatus, a method of encoding video, and a method of decoding video according to exemplary embodiments will be described in detail with reference to FIGS. 1 to 24. Specifically, encoding and decoding video on the basis of spatially hierarchical data units according to exemplary embodiments will be described with reference to FIGS. 1 through 15. Also, encoding and decoding video by performing deblocking filtering in consideration of coding units, prediction units, and transformation units, according to exemplary embodiments, will be described with reference to FIGS. 16 through 24- ¶0043), comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memory devices storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors (i.e. The exemplary embodiments can be written as computer programs and can be implemented in general-use digital computers that execute the programs using a computer readable recording medium. Examples of the computer readable recording medium include magnetic storage media (e.g., ROM, floppy disks, hard disks, etc.) and optical recording media (e.g., CD-ROMs, or DVDs)- ¶0245) to function as:
a detection unit configured to detect a boundary between two adjacent transform blocks(i.e. The performing the deblocking filtering may include determining a boundary strength in consideration of the encoding modes of the coding units- ¶0015…According to an exemplary embodiment, the deblocking filtering performing units 1430 and 1540 of FIGS. 16 and 17 may determine boundary strength, whether deblocking filtering is to be performed, the length of the deblocking filter, and a number and location of samples that are to be filtered, based on whether a current block boundary is a boundary of a coding unit, a prediction unit, or a transformation unit- ¶0023…boundary strength may be set based on whether current boundaries correspond to boundaries of at least one from among a coding unit, a prediction unit, and a transformation unit- ¶0181); and
a deciding unit configured to decide whether or not a deblocking filter is to be applied to decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary detected by the detection unit, and to decide a deblocking filter to be applied from among a plurality of deblocking filters with different strengths (i.e. determining whether deblocking filtering is to be performed, or determining a deblocking filtering method including information regarding filter tab size- ¶0015… According to an exemplary embodiment, if the boundary strength of the deblocking filter for a luma component is `4`, results of deblocking filtering the samples p2 and q2 may be disregarded from among the samples 2000 used as deblocking filtering coefficients, except for the samples p3 and q3- ¶0236… A deblocking filtering method that specifies whether deblocking filtering is to be performed on boundaries, boundary strength of a deblocking filter, and filter tab size, may be determined according to types of data units including coding units, prediction units, and transformation units that form the boundaries, the sizes of the data units, and a partition mode, defined in the encoding modes of the coding units- ¶0240), wherein
if a first size of a first transform block (i.e. A data unit used as a base of the transformation will now be referred to as a “transformation unit”- ¶0065…Figs. 10 through 12 are diagrams for describing a relationship between coding units 1010, prediction units 1060, and transformation units 1070) of the two adjacent transform blocks or a second size of a second transformation block of the two adjacent transform blocks is greater than or equal to a first threshold, the deciding unit decides that the deblocking filter is to be applied to the decoded pixels of each of the two adjacent transform blocks along the boundary (i.e. The deblocking filtering performing unit 1430 may perform deblocking filtering by considering at least one from among coding unit size, prediction unit size, and transformation unit size defined in the encoding modes of the coding units- ¶0182…The number of data units in which deblocking filtering is to be performed, i.e., the application unit 1930, may be determined to be `2`, `1`, or `0`, based on whether the boundary between the two adjacent data units is a boundary of a maximum coding unit (LCU), a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), or a transformation unit (TU) (block type 1910) and whether the sizes of the two adjacent data units are the same, are greater than a predetermined threshold or are not greater than the predetermined threshold (block size 1920)- ¶0230… Also, a deblocking filtering method may be set to satisfy at least one of the above conditions- ¶0231).
However, Min does not teach explicitly:
with the highest strength among the plurality of deblocking filters.
In the same field of endeavor, Geert teaches:
with the highest strength among the plurality of deblocking filters (i.e. Therefore, the techniques described in this disclosure may enable entropy encoding unit 56 to signal specific de-blocking adjustment parameters to control the de-blocking strength in case that at least one of two adjacent video blocks P and Q are included in a transform unit with the maximum transform size. In other words, the techniques of this disclosure may adjust the deblocking filter strength in cases where at least one of two adjacent video blocks P and Q is included in a transform unit with the maximum transform size. The common edge between blocks P and Q is typically subject to de-blocking filtering. If neither video block P or Q is included in a maximum sized transform unit, then the current de-blocking adjustment parameters apply- ¶0166… In the example of FIG. 8, the video coder may first determine whether the P or Q block is in an intra-coded CU and in a TU of maximum size (max TU) (180). If either of the P or Q blocks is in an intra-coded CU and in a max TU ("YES" 180), the video coder may set the boundary strength value to four (182)- ¶0308).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Min with the teachings of Geert to improve perceived visual quality of the resulting video data after encoding (Geert- ¶0005).
Regarding claim 2, method claim 2 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Regarding claim 3, computer-readable medium storing instructions claim 3 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights