DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10-17 are pending for examination.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under FR 2208524 filed on 8/25/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim falls outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter at least because the claimed computer-readable recording medium in light of the supporting disclosure is broad enough to encompass transitory embodiments. “A digital signal” is detailed in the specification as signal which is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106(i)
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, (Fed.Cir. 2007).
A broad but reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a digital signal which typically covers transitory, propagating signals (e.g., a data signal on a carrier wave) that lack a "physical or tangible form". See MPEP 2111.01.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasai et al, On Deblocking Process Simplification for Slice and Tile Boundaries.
Regarding Claim 10, Sasai discloses a method for processing at least one decoded image region, the method comprising:
at the exit of a decoding loop that has decoded at least one current image region, processing the decoded current image region with the aid of a boundary smoothing module using metadata relating at least to a boundary between the current image region and a neighboring image region (Sasai p.3 sec.2.2 – when no loop filter process is applied to slice or tile boundaries, there may be boundary artefacts around the processing boundaries. The boundary artefacts can be removed by the post-processing filter without additional storage in the decoder. SEI messages can be used to indicate which type of filter should be used for the boundaries),
wherein the metadata relates at least to a choice of a smoothing function to be applied to the boundary, from a set of predetermined smoothing functions (Sasai p.3 sec.2.2 – This SEI message provides the deblocking filter strength for the design of a post-filter for processing boundaries for potential use in post-processing of the output decoded pictures to obtain improved displayed quality).
Regarding Claim 11, Sasai discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein: the decoded current image region comprises a bordering region corresponding to the boundary and a region distant from the boundary, and the processing of the decoded current image region comprises a processing of the bordering region and does not comprise a processing of the region that is distant from the boundary (Sasai p.2 sec.2.1, Fig.1 – Filtered Samples for processing boundaries).
Regarding Claim 12, Sasai discloses the method according to claim 10, the method further comprising: controlling the processing of the decoded current image region with the aid of a controller, using first data relating to a decoding of the current image region and second data relating to a decoding of a neighboring image (Sasai p.3 sec.2.2 – This SEI message provides the deblocking filter strength for the design of a post-filter for processing boundaries for potential use in post-processing of the output decoded pictures to obtain improved displayed quality; see Table 3 for the description for across slice/tile filtering)
With regard to claim 14, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 10 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 10 is applied to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Sasai discloses the digital signal according to claim 14, wherein the metadata further relates to an activation of the smoothing, and/or to an adjustment of a smoothing strength to be applied at the boundary (Sasai p.3 sec.2.2 – This SEI message provides the deblocking filter strength for the design of a post-filter for processing boundaries for potential use in post-processing of the output decoded pictures to obtain improved displayed quality; see Table 3 for the description for across slice/tile filtering).
With regard to claim 16, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 10 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 10 is applied to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Sasai discloses the data processing circuit according to claim 16, wherein the output interface is configured not to provide the metadata to the decoding loop (Sasai p.3 sec.2.2 – This SEI message provides the deblocking filter strength for the design of a post-filter for processing boundaries for potential use in post-processing of the output decoded pictures to obtain improved displayed quality.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasai, in view of Lee, US 2012/0263225 A1.
With regard to claim 13, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 10 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 10 is applied to claim 13.
However, Sasai does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a program for implementing the method according to claim 10.
Lee teaches similar embodiments that use a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Lee [0020]).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Sasai to have its teachings on a non-transitory CRM, as taught by Lee. One would be motivated as the non-transitory CRM is another means for the process to run on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights