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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed July 2nd 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and the non-election of claims 13-18 in the reply filed on June 7th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains a mis-spelled word “across-component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Non-elected claims 13-18, filed June 7th, 2026, do not include an updated claim status indicator to reflect Applicant’s non-election of the claims. The claim 13-18 currently maintain the “Original” status. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 8 recites the limitation "colour ALF processing." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al., US 20210176501 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Chen discloses a method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) processing of reconstructed video (Chen: FIG. 1 ), the method comprising: receiving reconstructed pixels (Chen: SAO Luma 102, SAO Cb 110, SAO Cr 112, Rec 612, Figs. 1 and 6), wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise a current block and each reconstructed pixel comprises multiple colour components (Chen: SAO Luma 102, SAO Cb 110, SAO Cr 112, Fig. 1); applying ALF processing to a target colour component of the current block (Chen: ALF Luma 104, ALF Chroma 114. Fig. 1), wherein the ALF processing comprises colour-component ALF processing (Chen: ALF Luma 104, ALF Chroma 114. Fig. 1) and cross-component ALF processing (Chen: CC ALF Cb 106, CC ALF Cr 108. Fig. 1), the colour-component ALF processing is applied to the target colour component of the current block to generate the target colour component for a filtered-reconstructed current block (Chen: ALF Luma 104, ALF Chroma 114. Fig. 1), and the cross-component ALF processing is applied to another colour component of the current block to generate across-component adjustment for the target colour component of the filtered-reconstructed current block (Chen: CC ALF Cb 106, CC ALF Cr 108 applied to Luma. Fig. 1), and wherein input data related to reconstructed pixels associated with at least two colour components are provided for the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing (Fig. 2A), and the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing use signaled coefficients (Chen: ALF and CCALF coefficients signaled in one or more ALF APSs. ¶¶ [0020]- [0021]); and providing the filtered-reconstructed current block and providing the across-component adjustment to the target colour component of the filtered-reconstructed current block to generate a final filtered-reconstructed current block (Chen: Output of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the target colour component for the colour- component ALF processing corresponds to a first chroma component, and the input data related to the reconstructed pixels comprising a luma component are provided for the colour ALF processing (Chen: Chroma ALF 114, Luma SAO 102, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the input data related to the reconstructed pixels further comprise the first chroma component and/or a second chroma component (Chen: Cr, Cb. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), The method of Claim 1, wherein the target colour component for the colour- component ALF processing corresponds to a luma component, and the input data related to the reconstructed pixels comprising a first chroma component are provided for the colour ALF processing (Chen: Luma ALF 104, SAO Cb/Cr 110 and 112, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein a flag is signaled in APS (Adaptation Parameter Set), slice, picture header, SPS (Sequence Parameter Set), or PPS (Picture Parameter Set) to select between Cb or Cr component for the colour ALF processing (Chen: Signal flags. ¶¶ [0009]- [0013]).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing use one or more APS (Adaptation Parameter Set) classifiers (Chen: ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the input data related to the reconstructed pixels provided for the cross-component ALF processing are from different stages (Chen: SAO stages. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Chen discloses the method of Claim 9, wherein the input data related to the reconstructed pixels provided for the cross-component ALF processing are from one or more stages comprising pre-DF (Deblocking Filter), pre-SAO (Sample Adaptive Offset), post-filtered samples or a combination thereof in addition to pre-ALF (Chen: SAO stages. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12. (Original), claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 12. Therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 (Chen: apparatus for video encoding. Encoder 500, Fig. 5).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Strom et al., US 20230023387 (hereinafter referred to as “Strom”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of Claim 6, wherein the signaled coefficients are selected according to said one or more APS classifiers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Strom discloses Chen discloses the method of Claim 6, wherein the signaled coefficients are selected according to said one or more APS classifiers (Strom: ¶ Classifies color sample and determines filter coefficients based on the classification [0005]).
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 teachings of Chen with wherein the signaled coefficients are selected according to said one or more APS classifiers, as taught by Strom, in order to most efficiently lower the error between the reconstructed image components, as disclosed by Strom. Strom ¶ [0005].
Claims 8 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Chen et al., US 20210084295 Al (hereinafter referred to as “Chen 295”).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein one or more differences between one or more neighboring samples and a center sample are used for the colour ALF processing, and wherein said one or more neighboring samples correspond to a different colour component from the center sample.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen 295 discloses wherein one or more differences between one or more neighboring samples and a center sample are used for the colour ALF processing, and wherein said one or more neighboring samples correspond to a different colour component from the center sample (Chen: ¶¶ [0015]- [0021]).
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 teachings of Chen with one or more differences between one or more neighboring samples and a center sample are used for the colour ALF processing, and wherein said one or more neighboring samples correspond to a different colour component from the center sample, as taught by Chen 295, in order to reduce the impact of neighbor sample values. (Chen 295, ¶ [0021])
Regarding claim 11(Original), Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of Claim 1, wherein coefficients and clipping indices for the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing are jointly optimized at an encoder side.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chen 295 discloses coefficients and clipping indices for the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing are jointly optimized at an encoder side (Chen 295: ¶ [0025]).
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 teachings of Chen with coefficients and clipping indices for the colour-component ALF processing and the cross-component ALF processing are jointly optimized at an encoder side, as taught by Chen 295, in order to limit signaling cost and the encoder complexity. Chen 295, ¶ [0026].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights