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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 1-2,12,15,19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Taquet teaches,
A method for filter coefficient derivation simplification for cross- component prediction, (¶125 and 101, “reduced bitdepth representation” of either or both “filter coefficients” or “cross-component input samples” for “Cross Component ALF (CCALF)” filtering) the method comprising:
determining filter coefficients for a current coding unit (¶125,128, and fig. 5-a, “bitwise memory representation of CCALF filter coefficients” as depicted in fig. 5-a for coefficients of encoded block of image output portion “processed by the ALF”) based on samples within a reference area for the current coding unit; (¶125 and 96, “internal bitdepth of the first component samples” of encoded block of image output portion “processed by the ALF”)
reducing a bit precision of the filter coefficients to produce reduced filter coefficients; (¶128,121, fig. 4-b and 5-a, “bitwise representation 402 of a CCALF filter coefficient” using a “16-bits signed integer representation”, depicted in fig. 4-b, “is then reduced to 13 bits” in 501 as depicted in fig. 5-a)
determining a predicted chroma sample (¶102 and fig. 3, “generate for each Chroma channel a processed output image portion 313, 314”) for a current luma sample based on input values for the current luma sample (¶102 and fig. 3, “cross component adaptive loop filtering (CCALF) process 308, 309” used to generate for each Chroma channel based on “input image portion of the luma channel 201”) and
encoding or decoding the predicted chroma sample. (¶202, “CCALF filters” a given “Chroma component” is sequentially encoded/decoded in/from the bitstream)
But does not explicitly teach,
predicting a predicted chroma sample based on the reduced filter coefficients;
However, Hu teaches additionally,
predicting a predicted chroma sample (¶154, “predict CCALF filter coefficients” of a red hue and blue hue chroma blocks) based on the reduced filter coefficients; (¶63 and 154, predict CCALF filter coefficients using “values of the coefficients coded in a dynamic range with a reduced “number of bits needed to code the actual filter coefficient value”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu which reduces bits needed to code filter coefficient values. This reduces the number of bits, reducing the size of the bitstream, thereby improving video coding.
Regarding claim 2, Taquet with Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Taquet teaches additionally,
reducing a number of bits used to store values of the filter coefficients (¶128 and fig. 5a, bitwise representation 402 “reduced to 13” in 501 as depicted in fig. 5-a) from a first number of bits to a second number of bits, (¶128, fig. 4-b and 5-a, “limiting the fixed point decimal precision to 7 bits”, depicted in fig. 5-a, “instead of 10 bits”, depicted in fig. 4-b where decimal part has 10 bit samples internal bit-depth)
Hu teaches additionally,
wherein values of the reduced filter coefficients are stored using the second number of bits. (¶63, CCALF includes a set of filter coefficients coded using a reduced “number of bits needed to code the actual filter coefficient value” using a calculated dynamic range in a header or parameter set)
Regarding claim 12, Taquet with Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Taquet teaches additionally,
decoding one or more syntax elements (¶202, “coefficients of CCALF filters are signalled” decoded in/from the bitstream) associated with the filter coefficients signaled within a bitstream. (¶202, “each coefficient of the corresponding filter” is sequentially “decoded in/from the bitstream”)
Regarding claim 15, Taquet teaches,
An apparatus for filter coefficient derivation simplification for cross-component prediction, (¶125,101, and fig. 11, “reduced bitdepth representation” of either or both “filter coefficients” or “cross-component input samples” for “Cross Component ALF (CCALF)” filtering implemented by processing device 9300 as depicted in fig. 11) the apparatus comprising:
a processor (¶202 and fig. 11, processing device 9300 which includes “a central processing unit 9311”, such as a microprocessor, denoted CPU) configured to:
obtain samples within a reference area for a current coding unit; (¶125 and 96, “internal bitdepth of the first component samples” of encoded block of image output as “decoded image” portion “processed by the ALF”)
reduce a bit precision of filter coefficients determined based on the samples to produce reduced filter coefficients; (¶128,121, fig. 4-b and 5-a, “bitwise representation 402 of a CCALF filter coefficient” using a “16-bits signed integer representation”, depicted in fig. 4-b, “is then reduced to 13 bits” in 501 as depicted in fig. 5-a)
determine input values for a current luma sample; (¶102 and fig. 3, “input image portion of the Luma channel 201 is provided” as depicted in fig. 3)
determine a predicted chroma sample (¶102 and fig. 3, “generate for each Chroma channel a processed output image portion 313, 314”) for the current luma sample based on the input values (¶102 and fig. 3, “cross component adaptive loop filtering (CCALF) process 308, 309” used to generate for each Chroma channel based on “input image portion of the luma channel 201”) and
encode or decode the predicted chroma sample. (¶202, “CCALF filters” a given “Chroma component” is sequentially encoded/decoded in/from the bitstream)
But does not explicitly teach,
determine a predicted chroma sample based on reduced filter coefficients
However, Hu teaches additionally,
determine a predicted chroma sample (¶154, “predict CCALF filter coefficients” of a red hue and blue hue chroma blocks) based on reduced filter coefficients (¶63 and 154, predict CCALF filter coefficients using “values of the coefficients coded in a dynamic range with a reduced “number of bits needed to code the actual filter coefficient value”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu which reduces bits needed to code filter coefficient values. This reduces the number of bits, reducing the size of the bitstream, thereby improving video coding.
Regarding claim 19, Taquet teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage device including program instructions (¶243-244 and fig. 11, “executable code may be stored either in read only memory 9307” depicted in fig. 11) executable by one or more processors that, when executed, (¶244 and fig. 11, “central processing unit 9311 is adapted to control and direct the execution of the instructions or portions of software code of the program or programs according to the invention, instructions that are stored in one of the aforementioned storage means” depicted in fig. 11) cause the one or more processors to perform operations for filter coefficient derivation simplification for cross-component prediction, (¶125,101, and fig. 11, “reduced bitdepth representation” of either or both “filter coefficients” or “cross-component input samples” for “Cross Component ALF (CCALF)” filtering implemented by processing device 9300 as depicted in fig. 11) the operations comprising:
reducing a bit precision of filter coefficients determined for a current coding unit to produce reduced filter coefficients; (¶128,121, fig. 4-b and 5-a, “bitwise representation 402 of a CCALF filter coefficient” using a “16-bits signed integer representation”, depicted in fig. 4-b, “is then reduced to 13 bits” in 501 as depicted in fig. 5-a)
determining input values for a current luma sample; (¶102 and fig. 3, “input image portion of the Luma channel 201 is provided” as depicted in fig. 3)
determining a predicted chroma sample (¶102 and fig. 3, “generate for each Chroma channel a processed output image portion 313, 314”) for the current luma sample based on the input values (¶102 and fig. 3, “cross component adaptive loop filtering (CCALF) process 308, 309” used to generate for each Chroma channel based on “input image portion of the luma channel 201”) and
encoding or decoding the predicted chroma sample. (¶202, “CCALF filters” a given “Chroma component” is sequentially encoded/decoded in/from the bitstream)
But does not explicitly teach,
determine a predicted chroma sample based on reduced filter coefficients
However, Hu teaches additionally,
determine a predicted chroma sample (¶154, “predict CCALF filter coefficients” of a red hue and blue hue chroma blocks) based on reduced filter coefficients (¶63 and 154, predict CCALF filter coefficients using “values of the coefficients coded in a dynamic range with a reduced “number of bits needed to code the actual filter coefficient value”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu which reduces bits needed to code filter coefficient values. This reduces the number of bits, reducing the size of the bitstream, thereby improving video coding.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of ALSHINA; Elena Alexandrovna et al. (US 20220239909 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 2,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Alshina teaches additionally,
values of the reduced filter coefficients are clipped using one or more threshold values. (¶430, “amending (e.g. clipping) a (one or more) positive filter coefficient of the positive filter coefficients” based on comparing a sum of “positive filter coefficients of the obtained filter coefficients” with a “threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter coefficient comparison of Alshina which can clip the filter coefficient. This allows for ensuring a desired bit-depth is achieved.
Claim 4,16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of ALSHINA; Elena Alexandrovna et al. (US 20220239909 A1) in view of Panchapakesan; Kannan et al. (US 20090285308 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Taquet with Hu with Alshina teaches the limitations of claim 3,
Alshina teaches additionally,
clipping the reduced filter coefficients (¶430, “amending (e.g. clipping) a (one or more) positive filter coefficient of the positive filter coefficients” based on comparing a sum of “positive filter coefficients of the obtained filter coefficients” with a “threshold”)
But does not explicitly teach,
according to a minimum clipping value and a maximum clipping value.
However, Panchapakesan teaches additionally,
clipping according to a minimum clipping value and a maximum clipping value. (¶54, “clips the threshold value to either a minimum value or a maximum value”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter coefficient comparison of Alshina with the clipping threshold of Panchapakesan which has a minimum and maximum value. This tunes the process to balance blockiness reduction with excessive blurring in a video sequence.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 15, it is the apparatus claim similar to claim 4, dependent on claim 3. See rejection of claim 4 to understand teaching of claim 16.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220078415 A1)(Taquet2)
Regarding claim 5, Taquet with Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 5,
However, Taquet2 teaches additionally,
filter coefficient corresponding to a bias term (¶74, “value of this 7th coefficient” is “evaluated with a fixed point computation” using a “sum of all the filter coefficients for coefficient positions 0-5”) is determined after all other filter coefficients are determined. (¶74, “value of this 7th coefficient at coefficient position 6” evaluated with a fixed point computation “deduced/derived from the other filter coefficients”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the coefficient determination of Taquet2 which occurs after knowing the filter coefficients before the last position. This allows for application of filters that can improve the rate distortion cost for signaling chroma components.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of ZHANG; Kai et al. (US 20220256197 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Taquet with Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 6,
However, Taquet2 teaches additionally,
filter coefficients are determined (¶96-98, “luma interpolation filter coefficients” are derived) based on non-downsampled luma samples of the reference area. (¶96-98,94, and 89, “luma interpolation filter coefficients” are specified based on “luma location (xSb, ySb) specifying the top-left sample” which corresponds to a “luma location in full-sample units” input)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter coefficient derivation of Zhang which uses luma locations associated with a full-sample unit. This allows for techniques that contribute towards inter prediction in pixel level granularity without increasing the memory access bandwidth.
Claim 7-8,10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of Chen; Huanbang et al. (US 20200260108 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 7,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
filter coefficients are determined based on the current coding unit having a size greater than a threshold. (¶59, “Filters that employ more coefficients, also known as taps” when the adaptive “filter can apply filters with more taps when the sub-block's size is larger than the threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter tap adaptation of Chen based on a threshold of the sub-block size. This allows for adaptive filtering that uses less complex computations, requiring fewer resources.
Regarding claim 8, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 8,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
number of the filter coefficients is limited when a size of the current coding unit is less than a threshold. (¶59, “Filters that employ more coefficients, also known as taps” when the adaptive filter can “apply filters with fewer taps when the sub-block's size is equal to or smaller than the threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter tap adaptation of Chen based on a threshold of the sub-block size. This allows for adaptive filtering that uses less complex computations, requiring fewer resources.
Regarding claim 10, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 10,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
a first number of the filter coefficients is determined based on the current coding unit having a size greater than a threshold (¶59, “adaptive interpolation filter can apply filters with more taps when the sub-block's size is larger than the threshold”) and a second number of the filter coefficients smaller than the first number (¶59, “apply filters with fewer taps” relative to a threshold size of a sub-block, where filters that employ more coefficients, also known as taps, more accurately describe the signal) is determined based on the current coding unit having a size lesser than the threshold. (¶59, adaptive interpolation filter can “apply filters with fewer taps when the sub-block's size is equal to or smaller than the threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter tap adaptation of Chen based on a threshold of the sub-block size. This allows for adaptive filtering that uses less complex computations, requiring fewer resources.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of Chen; Huanbang et al. (US 20200260108 A1) in view of LIN; Zhi-Yi et al. (US 20210314559 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Taquet with Hu with Chen teach the limitations of claim 7,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 9,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
threshold corresponds to an 8x8 chroma sample unit. (¶65, “threshold is 8 chroma samples” based on the width or height of the “chroma samples” which includes 8×8 chroma block that can be split into children blocks)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter tap adaptation of Chen with the threshold of Lin which is related to the dimensions of a chroma block. Coding performance can be improved based on the processing throughput by setting a root block for the blocks being coded.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of SARWER; Mohammed Golam et al. (US 20230007245 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 11,
However, Sarwer teaches additionally,
deriving at least a portion of the filter coefficients (¶105, “calculating filter coefficients”) based on reconstructed chroma samples within the reference area. (¶105, “calculating filter coefficients” associated with “reconstructed chroma samples” with respect to the original chroma samples)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the calculated filter coefficients of Sarwer which associates with reconstructed chroma samples. This makes the filter shape content adaptive.
Claim 13,17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of KUO; Che-Wei et al. (US 20220150490 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 13,
However, Kuo teaches additionally,
predicted chroma sample (¶143, “(R(x, y)+offset)”) is clipped using one or more threshold values (¶143, “clip function Clip 3 is applied to the (R(x, y)+offset)” to make output chroma sample value R′(x, y) within the bit depth dynamic range ranging from “0 to (1<<bit_depth)-1”) and based on chroma values in the reference area. (¶142-143, make output chroma sample value R′(x, y), that is offset after CCSAO and clipped, based on “R(x, y) be the input chroma sample value before CCSAO”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the clip function of Kuo which is applied to a chroma sample value. This provides improvements to coding efficiency of chroma coding by exploring cross-component relationship between luma and chroma components.
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 15, it is an apparatus claim that is similar to, but broader variation of, method claim 13, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 13 to understand the teaching of claim 17.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of KUO; Che-Wei et al. (US 20220150490 A1) in view of DENG; Zhipin et al. (US 20220256166 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 13,
Kuo teaches additionally,
clipping the predicted chroma sample (¶143, “clip function Clip 3 is applied to the (R(x, y)+offset)” to make output chroma sample value R′(x, y) within the bit depth dynamic range ranging from “0 to (1<<bit_depth)-1”) according to a minimum clipping value, a maximum clipping value, (¶143, clip within the bit depth dynamic range ranging from “0 to (1<<bit_depth)-1”)
But does not explicitly teach,
clipping according to a weighting factor.
However, Deng teaches additionally,
clipping the predicted chroma sample (¶239-259, “weight” for a chroma prediction sample “may be clipped to a range [M, N]” as part of Weighted Samples TPM blending process) according to a weighting factor. (¶239-259, “weight” for a chroma prediction sample “may be clipped to a range [M, N]”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the clip function of Kuo with the weighting of Deng which weighs the chroma prediction samples. This contributes to reducing the average bitrate of input video.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of Haskell; Barin Geoffry (US 20120082217 A1) in view of Liu; Lingzhi (US 20130188705 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Taquet with Hu teach the limitations of claim 15,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 18,
However, Haskell teaches additionally,
when an auto-correlation matrix computed (¶62-63 and fig. 9, computed “auto-correlation matrices (box 224)” averaged over the mcblock) in connection with the determination of the filter coefficients is singular, (¶62-63, produced “auto-correlation matrices” averaged computed over the mcblock that produces matrices “that are singular”) the reference area is used (¶63, affected coefficients “may be chosen to be zero” when “procedure may produce auto-correlation matrices that are singular” indicating filter coefficients may be arbitrary)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the auto-correlation computation of Haskell which determines auto-correlation matrices to be singular. This type of generated filter may be used to produce a codebook with a desired number of accuracy representation of filters.
but does not explicitly teach,
an average of reconstructed chroma values in the reference area is used as the predicted chroma sample.
However, Liu teaches additionally,
when a determination occurs, (¶46-47 and fig. 2, “information containing a prediction mode (e.g., the LM mode) of the current block may also be decoded” used by “prediction module 240”, depicted in fig. 2, to generate a block for the current block) an average of reconstructed chroma values in the reference area is used (¶47-48, prediction module 240 configured to use a LM mode to generate a prediction block for a current chroma block by “generating the prediction block” based on “computing a function of an average of reconstructed chroma samples located in neighboring blocks of the current chroma block” used in generating a predicted block for a “current chroma block”) as the predicted chroma sample. (¶47-48, generated the “prediction block” for a “current chroma block”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the auto-correlation computation of Haskell with the prediction block generation of Liu for a current chroma block. This type of computation may reduce bit widths of multipliers involved in computation.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAQUET; Jonathan et al. (US 20220312006 A1) in view of Hu; Nan et al. (US 20210067793 A1) in view of ALSHINA; Elena Alexandrovna et al. (US 20220239909 A1) in view of Panchapakesan; Kannan et al. (US 20090285308 A1) in view of KUO; Che-Wei et al. (US 20220150490 A1) in view of LI; Jing Ya et al. (US 20220272334 A1)
Regarding claim 20, dependent on claim 19, it is the program instruction claim of the combined claims 3, dependent on claim 2, claim 4, dependent on claim 3, and claim 13, dependent on claim 1. However, the claims also discloses the predicted chroma sample is clipped based on “chroma values in a reference area that includes samples used to determine the filter coefficients”, which is not explicitly disclosed by the combination of prior art previously cited in claims 3, 4, and 13.
However, Li teaches additionally,
wherein the predicted chroma sample is clipped (¶969 and fig. 97-S1003, “modified reconstructed image sample of a chroma component is clipped”) based on chroma values in a reference area (¶969, “sample of a chroma component”) that includes samples used to determine the filter coefficients (¶969, clipping that minimizes difference between a residual and filtered “value of chroma samples” used to “determine filter coefficients”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chroma loop filtering of Taquet with the cross-component adaptive loop filtering of Hu with the filter coefficient comparison of Alshina with the clipping threshold of Panchapakesan with the clip function of Kuo with the chroma component clipping of Li which also relates to determining filter coefficients. This technique may reduce hardware internal memory size requirements for storing filtered image sample values. Refer to the mappings of claims 3, 4, and 13 to understand the teaching of the additional limitations of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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 G. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
