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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BORDES et al. (Hereafter, “Bordes”) [US 2020/0296388 A1].
In regards to claim 15, the claim limitations and the recitation of, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding…” is a non- functional descriptive material, wherein no functional relationship exists between the recording medium and the data. "To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated". MPEP §2111.05(i)(A). When a claimed "computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The computer-readable storage medium storing the bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the bitstream and the computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the structure data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with an image signal and is anticipated by Bordes which recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream ([0106] As an example, the bitstream is stored in a remote or in a local memory, e.g. a video memory or a RAM, a hard disk. In a variant, the bitstream is sent to a storage interface, e.g. an interface with a mass storage, a ROM, a flash memory, an optical disc or a magnetic support and/or transmitted over a communication interface, e.g. an interface to a point to point link, a communication bus, a point to multipoint link or a broadcast network.).
Regarding claims 16-20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claim 15 and thus are similarly rejected.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORDES et al. (Hereafter, “Bordes”) [US 2020/0296388 A1] in view of PARK et al. (Hereafter, “Park”) [US 2026/0122227 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Bordes discloses a decoding method ([0005] a decoding method), comprising: constructing a filter candidate list including multiple filter candidates ([0006] decoding a plurality of candidate sets of filter parameters from a bitstream [0136 and Fig. 9] At step S130, the transmitter obtains a plurality of candidate sets of filter parameters relating to both components luma and chroma.); and determining a final filter among the multiple filter candidates ([0007] decoding for a current block of the picture an index identifying one of the candidate sets of filter parameters from the bitstream [0136 and Fig. 9] determines an index (merge_idx) for each block of the picture part that identifies one candidate set among the plurality of candidate sets to be used for filtering the reconstructed block at step S140).
Park discloses a decoding method ([Abstract] an image decoding/encoding method), comprising: constructing a filter candidate list including multiple filter candidates ([Abstract] a candidate list including a plurality of pre-defined interpolation filter candidates); and determining a final filter among the multiple filter candidates ([Abstract] determine an interpolation filter of the current block on the basis of a candidate list including a plurality of pre-defined interpolation filter candidates).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Bordes discloses wherein the final filter is determined based on matching costs of the multiple filter candidates ([0137 and Fig. 9] In a variant, the plurality of candidate sets of filter parameters are determined on the fly by Rate-Distortion Optimization known as RDO as illustrated by FIG. 9 from the content of the picture part. [0138] An index is also determined for each block of the picture part, said index identifying one candidate set among the plurality of candidate sets to be used for filtering the reconstructed block. The index may also be determined by RDO.).
Park discloses wherein the final filter is determined based on matching costs of the multiple filter candidates ([0100] In terms of a decoding apparatus, a cost may be calculated for each interpolation filter candidate belonging to a candidate list. Among the costs calculated based on the interpolation filter candidates, one interpolation filter candidate with the minimum cost may be selected.).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Bordes discloses wherein the filter candidate list is reconstructed based on the matching costs ([0137 and Fig. 9] In this latter case, the different variants (e.g. re-ordering of the candidate sets in the list as disclosed for step S250 of FIG. 13A) disclosed for the decoding method also apply when determining the coding rate. To this aim, the list of candidate sets resulting in the best rate-distortion trade-off is selected.).
Park discloses wherein the filter candidate list is reconstructed based on the matching costs ([0010] In an image decoding method and device according to the present disclosure, a reordered candidate list may be generated by reordering the interpolation filter candidates in ascending order of the SAD values.).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Bordes discloses wherein reordering of the multiple filter candidates in the filter candidate list is performed based on the matching costs ([0137 and Fig. 9] In this latter case, the different variants (e.g. re-ordering of the candidate sets in the list as disclosed for step S250 of FIG. 13A) disclosed for the decoding method also apply when determining the coding rate. To this aim, the list of candidate sets resulting in the best rate-distortion trade-off is selected.).
Park discloses wherein reordering of the multiple filter candidates in the filter candidate list is performed based on the matching costs ([0010] In an image decoding method and device according to the present disclosure, a reordered candidate list may be generated by reordering the interpolation filter candidates in ascending order of the SAD values.).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Bordes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the matching costs are results of a calculation that uses a cost function for samples present in templates generated using the multiple filter candidates.
Park discloses wherein the matching costs are results of a calculation that uses a cost function for samples present in templates generated using the multiple filter candidates ([0102] The cost may be calculated as the sum of absolute difference (SAD) between one or more samples in a template region of a current block and one or more samples in a template region of a reference block.).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Bordes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the multiple filter candidates are applied to a template region of a template.
Park discloses wherein the multiple filter candidates are applied to a template region of a template ([0101] a cost may be calculated for all interpolation filter candidates belonging to a candidate list [0102] The cost may be calculated as the sum of absolute difference (SAD) between one or more samples in a template region of a current block and one or more samples in a template region of a reference block.).
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 Bordes with the teachings of Park in order to improve encoding and decoding efficiency of the system [See Park].
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Bordes discloses wherein a filter candidate used in an adjacent block of a target block is used as one of the multiple filter candidates of the target block ([0249] In a first embodiment, the candidate sets of filter parameters are re-ordered such that the set of filter parameters used for a block located immediately to the left of the current block when such a block is available is put at the first position in the list of candidate sets of filtering parameters.).
Claim 8 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim 11 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Claim 12 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 13 lists all the same elements of claim 6, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Claim 14 lists all the same elements of claim 7, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 7 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights