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
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2025 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Zheiudkou (US20200186810) (hereinafter Z).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“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 memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Z which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Z discloses, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon an encoded bitstream (0015-0017; memory storing processor and bitstream data).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prentice et al. (US20190378246) (hereinafter Prentice) in view of Zheiudkou (US20200186810) (hereinafter Z).
Regarding claim 1, Prentice discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining an enhanced reconstructed frame by applying a filter to at least one pixel of the first color plane of the reconstructed frame using at least one pixel value of the second color plane [Figs. 2-6, 0013-0022, 0047-006; performing filter operations on color level and reconstructing image].
Prentice discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Prentice does not explicitly disclose generating a reconstructed frame by decoding an encoded frame from a compressed bitstream, wherein the reconstructed frame comprises a first color plane and a second color plane.
Z discloses generating a reconstructed frame by decoding an encoded frame from a compressed bitstream, wherein the reconstructed frame comprises a first color plane and a second color plane [0004, 0015-0019, 0072-0087; reconstructing frame including information from a bitstream regarding color planes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Prentice with the teachings of Z as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such a system that can optimize bitrate and video quality is achieved (see Z 0003-0005).
Regarding claim 2, Prentice discloses wherein the first color plane has a lower resolution than the second color plane, and wherein applying the filter to the at least one pixel of the first color plane of the reconstructed frame using the at least one pixel value of the second color plane comprises: obtaining a down-sized second color plane by down-sizing the second color plane, wherein the at least one pixel value is a pixel of the down-sized second color plane [0047-0063; downsizing filtered image while considering color planes].
Regarding claim 3, Prentice discloses wherein obtaining the enhanced reconstructed frame by applying the filter comprises: applying a first filter to the first color plane to obtain an intermediate filtered color plane and applying the filter to the intermediate filtered color plane to obtain the enhanced reconstructed frame [0047-0063; filtered image including different color frequencies].
Regarding claim 6, Prentice discloses the limitations of the claims. However, Prentice does not explicitly disclose coding a syntax element indicating to apply the filter.
Z more explicitly discloses coding a syntax element indicating to apply the filter [Figs. 6-9, 0019-0028; signaling process for coding procedure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Prentice with the teachings of Z for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, Prentice discloses coding weights for the filter [0013, 0051-0054; coding parameters including weights for filtering].
Regarding claim 10, Prentice discloses the first color plane is a luminance plane, and the second color plane is a chrominance blue plane, or the first color plane is a luminance plane, and the second color plane is a chrominance red plane [0047-0063; color planes including different color frequencies].
Regarding claim 17, Prentice discloses a device, comprising: a processor configured to (Figs. 1-6; CRM).
obtain an enhanced reconstructed frame by applying a filter to at least one pixel of the first color plane of the reconstructed frame using at least one pixel value of the second color plane [Figs. 2-6, 0013-0022, 0047-006; performing filter operations on color level and reconstructing image].
Prentice discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Prentice does not explicitly disclose generating a reconstructed frame by decoding an encoded frame from a compressed bitstream, wherein the reconstructed frame comprises a first color plane and a second color plane.
Z discloses generating a reconstructed frame by decoding an encoded frame from a compressed bitstream, wherein the reconstructed frame comprises a first color plane and a second color plane [0004, 0015-0019, 0072-0087; reconstructing frame including information from a bitstream regarding color planes].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Prentice with the teachings of Z as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such a system that can optimize bitrate and video quality is achieved (see Z 0003-0005).
Regarding claim 18, Prentice discloses wherein the first color plane has a lower resolution than the second color plane, and wherein applying the filter to the at least one pixel of the first color plane of the reconstructed frame using the at least one pixel value of the second color plane comprises: obtaining a down-sized second color plane by down-sizing the second color plane, wherein the at least one pixel value is a pixel of the down-sized second color plane [0047-0063; downsizing filtered image while considering color planes].
Regarding claim 19, Prentice discloses wherein to obtain the enhanced reconstructed frame by applying the filter comprises to: apply a first filter to the first color plane to obtain an intermediate filtered color plane; and apply the filter to the intermediate filtered color plane to obtain the enhanced reconstructed frame [0047-0063; filtered image including different color frequencies].
Regarding claim 22, Prentice discloses the limitations of the claims. However, Prentice does not explicitly disclose coding a syntax element indicating to apply the filter.
Z more explicitly discloses coding a syntax element indicating to apply the filter [Figs. 6-9, 0019-0028; signaling process for coding procedure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Prentice with the teachings of Z for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 23, Prentice discloses coding weights for the filter [0013, 0051-0054; coding parameters including weights for filtering].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 20-21 and 24-25 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.
The prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose wherein the first filter uses first symmetric weights, apply a second filter to the first intermediate filtered color plane to obtain a second intermediate filtered color plane, wherein the second filter is applied to at least one pixel of the first intermediate filtered color plane using the at least one pixel value of the second color plane, and wherein the second filter uses second symmetric weights and apply the filter to the second intermediate filtered color plane to obtain the enhanced reconstructed frame, wherein the filter uses anti-symmetric weights, when taken in the environment of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm.
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, Joe 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.
/TALHA M NAWAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights