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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are objected to because they include reference characters (AV1) which are not enclosed within parentheses, nor explained.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 2, 11, 12,16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021061814 A1 YANG HUA et al. (hereafter Yang), and further in view of US 20150016543 A1 Rapaka; Krishnakanth et al. (hereafter Rapaka).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses A filtering method for AV1 (Fig.4), comprising: determining a to-be-filtered partition (Fig.2, [116]-[118], partitioning 202 is preformed prior to filtering 265), wherein the to-be-filtered partition comprises a plurality of blocks (Fig.8, [116], the CU in Fig.8 is one of coding unit or coding block as the result of the partitioning 202); performing parallel filtering operations on at least two of the plurality of blocks by using several threads ([03], [227]).
Yang fails to disclose the plurality of blocks form a plurality of rows; wherein the several threads are responsible for filtering operations on several rows in a one-to-one correspondence, the several rows comprise at least two consecutive rows in the plurality of rows, and each block in the at least two blocks is respectively located in a different row.
However, Rapaka teaches the plurality of blocks form a plurality of rows Fig.7, [124]); wherein the several threads are responsible for filtering operations on several rows in a one-to-one correspondence, the several rows comprise at least two consecutive rows in the plurality of rows, and each block in the at least two blocks is respectively located in a different row (Fig.8, [133]-[134], LCUs as the partitions forming rows of 54A-54G undergo filtering).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtering method for AV1 disclosed by Yang to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rapaka, in order to improve coding efficiency and video quality, as identified by Rapaka.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 17, Rapaka teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the several rows comprise a first row and one or more subsequent rows following the first row; and the performing parallel filtering operations on at least two of the plurality of blocks comprises: performing the following filtering operation on the first row: sequentially filtering each block in the first row from left to right; and performing the following filtering operation on the one or more subsequent rows: sequentially filtering each block in a target row from left to right, wherein a filtering progress of the target row lags behind a filtering progress of a previous row of the target row by a filtering time of two blocks, and the target row is any one of the one or more subsequent rows (Fig.8, [134]-[137]).
Regarding claims 11, 16, see the rejection for claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Rapaka, and further in view of US 20150003513 A1 Hashimoto; Ryoji et al. (hereafter Hashimoto).
Regarding claims 3, 13, 18, Hashimoto teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the several rows comprise an mth row and one or more subsequent rows following the mth row, and m is an integer greater than or equal to 2; and the performing parallel filtering operations on at least two of the plurality of blocks comprises: sequentially filtering each block in a target row from left to right by using a thread allocated to the target row, wherein a filtering progress of the target row lags behind a filtering progress of a previous row of the target row by a filtering time of two blocks, and the target row is the mth row or any one of the one or more subsequent rows (Fig.4, [40]-[42]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Yang, Rapaka and Hashimoto before him/her, to modify the filtering method for AV1 disclosed by Yang to include the teaching in the same field of endeavor of Rapaka and Hashimoto, in order to improve coding efficiency and video quality, as identified by Rapaka, and enhance performance, identified by Hashimoto.
Regarding claims 4, 14, 19, Hashimoto teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the target row corresponds to an nth row, and n is an integer greater than or equal to 2; and the performing parallel filtering operations on at least two of the plurality of blocks comprises: recording a quantity of filtered blocks in each row, wherein the quantity of filtered blocks indicates a quantity of currently filtered blocks; filtering a currently unfiltered block in the nth row when a quantity of filtered blocks in an (n-1)th row is greater than a maximum preset value, wherein the maximum preset value is a total quantity of blocks in the (n-1)th row; and filtering a corresponding block in the nth row when the quantity of filtered blocks is greater than 2 and is less than or equal to the maximum preset value, wherein a location of the corresponding block in the nth row is the quantity of filtered blocks minus 2 (Fig.8, [122]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 2015178796 A1, WO 2020251420 A2, US 20080123750 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights