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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/631,408 filed April 8th, 2024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 9 – 10, 13, and 17 – 18 beyond formalities and 112 Rejections.
Applicant canceled claim 22.
Applicant added new claim 23.
The pending claims are 1 – 21 and 23 [Page 10 lines 1 – 13].
Applicant provided their summary of the Interview conducted on July 1st, 2026 [Page 10 lines 13 – 18].
Applicant amended the Specification to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 10 lines 19 – 22].
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112 Rejections [Page 10 lines 23 – 26]. Examiner reconsiders the Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 10 lines 10 – 13].
Second, the Applicant recites amended independent claim 1 [Page 11 lines 1 – 17] and contends Cui does not render obvious features of the amended independent claims [Page 11 lines 18 – 27]. While Cui renders obvious scaling ranges in at least Paragraphs 107 – 109, the Examiner in the sole interest to expedite prosecution cites an additional reference against the claims.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited (Gisquet was not argued) or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Third, the Applicant contends the claims are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 11 lines 28 – 33] and contends new claim 23 is similarly Allowable [Page 12 lines 1 – 4].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution in view of the amended claims, a new reference was found against the amended independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 1st, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed April 10th, 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0119547 A1 referred to as “Cui” throughout), and further in view of Gisquet, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0397117 A1 referred to as “Gisquet” throughout).
Regarding claim 23, see claim 1 which is the encoding method performing the steps of the claimed program and additionally in view of Cui Figure 3 (see at least reference character 200) as well as Paragraphs 111 – 116 and 142 – 144 (encoder is a processor storing software).
Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining a clipping range to apply during an encoding of one or more pictures by a video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 68 – 72 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements), and 77 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping)],
the clipping range being different from a fixed clipping range that is based on a first bitdepth of the video codec [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values to signal or alternatively Smin and Smax), 103 – 108 (scaling the range, using offsets / look up tables, or different bounds at least), and 142 (changing bounds from the full range)];
the clipping range corresponding to a second bitdepth and being scaled down from the fixed clipping range of the video codec that corresponds to the first bitdepth when the second bitdepth of sample values of the one or more pictures is less than the first bitdepth of the video codec [Cui Figures 2, 3, and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values), 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values to signal or alternatively Smin and Smax), 100 – 109 (scaling between ranges from the picture range to an internal range in which the scaling is down to the picture range from the internal codec range),142, 160, and 166 – 168 (adjusting ranges based on maximum allowed range for encoders and decoders); Gisquet Figures 3 and 5 as well as Paragraphs 30 – 44 (scale factor determination in which the scale factor scales down the encoder range to the picture range / smaller range than the encoder / maximum bit depth), 49 – 57 (scale factor to scale down clipping range as the bitdepth is less than the maximum in at least Paragraph 51), 62 – 78 (similar the scaling is a scale down factor), 79 – 91 (see additionally TCScale parameter), and 189 – 191 (smaller range than the maximum range the scale factor is computed for), 194 – 203 (5 – 8 bits for a clipping range to scale down from 16 bits), and 211 – 224 (scaling ranges and refining adaptable ranges)];
applying the clipping range to the sample values of the one or more pictures to generate clipped sample values [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction), and 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS)];
generating coded information in a bitstream based on the clipped sample values [Cui Figures 3 and 7 (see at least reference characters 220, 524, and 526) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 68 – 72 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements, 75 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction), 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS)), 128 and 137 – 139 (entropy encoding syntax to signal clipping & clipped values)]; and
determining an inclusion/exclusion of a syntax element indicative of the clipping range in the bitstream based on a codec configuration of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 68 – 72 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream), and 103 – 105 (signaling clipping information)].
The motivation to combine Gisquet with Cui is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of control parameters for filtering in image / video reconstruction [Gisquet Paragraphs 1 – 5] in order to improve artifacts present in image after applying deblocking / ALF / in-loop filters by in part adjusting the clipping bounds [Gisquet Paragraphs 12 – 19 and 202 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
the applying comprises [See claim 1 “applying …” limitation for citations]:
applying the clipping range on the sample values that are output from a pre-filtering stage of the video codec to generate the clipped sample values [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), and 102 – 108 (pre-processing by applying the updated clipping bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools)]; and
providing the clipped sample values as inputs for the encoding by the video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7 (see at least reference characters 520, 522, and 524)) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), and 102 – 108 (pre-processing by applying the updated clipping bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools as before encoding / entropy coding in the codec)],
the clipping range being excluded from the bitstream when a reconstruction by the video codec has no reliance on the clipping range [Gisquet Figure 5 (see at least reference characters 505 and 509) as well as Paragraphs 182 – 184 (filtering skipped leads to the clipping bounds not being modified / updated thus not signaled in the bitstream as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 3, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining whether one or more coding tools of the video codec uses information of the clipping range [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 44 (various codecs using clipping ranges), 68 – 75 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements with coding tools such as LMCS, ALF, and MCTF), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream), 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values to signal or alternatively Smin and Smax), 103 – 108 (scaling the range, using offsets / look up tables, or different bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools)]; and
including the syntax element indicative of the clipping range in the bitstream when the information of the clipping range is used by the one or more coding tools of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 44 (various codecs using clipping ranges), 68 – 75 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements with coding tools such as LMCS, ALF, and MCTF), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream), 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values to signal or alternatively Smin and Smax), 103 – 108 (scaling the range, using offsets / look up tables, or different bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 4, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining a plurality of clipping ranges to apply during the encoding by the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 and 106 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 152 – 165 (control of change of sample in a filtering process by controlling the clipping bounds at the output of the filter), 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters)];
selecting one or more clipping ranges from the plurality of clipping ranges based on the codec configuration of the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 and 106 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 142 – 146 (tables used to select clipping based on codec configuration with parameters for ) and 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters)],
the one or more clipping ranges being respectively used by one or more tools of the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 and 103 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 131 – 135 and 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters for filters to combine with ALF / deblocking filtering and MCTF (Paragraphs 103 – 105 in Cui))]; and
including one or more syntax elements indicative of the one or more clipping ranges in the bitstream [See previous limitation for citations of the clipping ranges and additionally Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 44 (various codecs using clipping ranges), 68 – 75 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements with coding tools such as LMCS, ALF, and MCTF), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 5, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining a first clipping range and a second clipping range to apply during the encoding by the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 and 106 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 152 – 165 (control of change of sample in a filtering process by controlling the clipping bounds at the output of the filter), 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters), 175 and 188 – 192 (loop filters used and bounds changed for the use of strong / week filtering)],
the first clipping range being applied to input values of a prefiltering stage of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 72 – 80 (clipping for range conformance / pre-processing of signals for encoding / decoding), and 102 – 108 (pre-processing by applying the updated clipping bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools)] and
the second clipping range being applied to output values of the prefiltering stage of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 (see all elements as parts of the reconstruction process), 4 and 7 as well as 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), 103 – 108 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF where in Paragraphs 103 the preprocessing clipping renders obvious the pre-filtering stage claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art and Paragraph 106 renders obvious use of narrower and original clipping ranges); Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 152 – 165 (control of change of sample in a filtering process by controlling the clipping bounds at the output of the filter), 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters)],
the output values that are clipped in the second clipping range being encoded into the bitstream [See previous limitation (second clipping range citations) and additionally for “encoded into the bitstream” see Cui Figures 3 and 7 (see at least reference characters 220, 524, and 526) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 68 – 72 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements, 75 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction), 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS)), 128 and 137 – 139 (entropy encoding syntax to signal clipping & clipped values)];
determining that the first clipping range and the second clipping range are used respectively in a reconstruction by the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 and 103 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet or the use of a modified and original clipping range or allowing clipping to change on filter output (combine with Gisquet)) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 152 – 165 (control of change of sample in a filtering process by controlling the clipping bounds at the output of the filter), 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters)]; and
including one or more syntax elements indicative of the first clipping range and the second clipping range into the bitstream [See previous limitation for citations of the clipping ranges and additionally Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 44 (various codecs using clipping ranges), 68 – 75 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements with coding tools such as LMCS, ALF, and MCTF), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 6, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining that an in-loop filter for the reconstruction in the video codec uses information of the first clipping range that is applied to the input values of the prefiltering stage of the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 72 – 77 (includes the use of loop filters and signaling information in the bitstream), 103 – 108 (e.g. clipping ranges based on low or high dynamic processing range requirements including table / LUT based approaches combinable with Gisquet or the use of a modified and original clipping range or allowing clipping to change on filter output (combine with Gisquet)) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 133 – 135, 152 – 165 (control of change of sample in a filtering process by controlling the clipping bounds at the output of the filter), 166 – 170 (table based selection of clipping parameters), and 175 and 188 – 192 (loop filters used and bounds changed for the use of strong / week filtering)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 7, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining that a motion compensation tool of the video codec uses information of the second clipping range that is applied to the output values of the prefiltering stage of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 (see all elements as parts of the reconstruction process), 4 and 7 as well as 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), 102 – 108 (pre-processing for MCTF / motion compensation) and 135 – 138 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF thus the clipping range affects the motion compensation tool to one of ordinary skill in the art) and additionally / alternatively Gisquet Paragraph 175 (motion compensation using filtering techniques disclosed) and 188 – 192 (strength of filter affecting clipping bounds)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 8, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein a subject signal for applying a clipping operation has a dynamic range that is modified based on a function [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (obviousness between encoders / decoders), 89 – 91 (bit shifts on bounds), 93 – 94 (offset shifts on bounds), 108 (scaling bounds) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 166 – 170, 174 (bound update equations), and 192 – 202 (table and formula based bound update techniques most for signals to be filtered)], and
the method comprises at least one of [See limitations below for citations]:
applying the clipping operation with the clipping range on the subject signal without a modification of the clipping range according to the function [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 103 – 108 (using an original range / unmodified range as the obvious variants would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art)];
applying the clipping operation with a default clipping range on the subject signal [Cui Paragraphs 77 and 104 (default / original ranges)]; or
applying the clipping operation with a modified clipping range on the subject signal [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 89 – 91 (bit shifts on bounds), 93 – 94 (offset shifts on bounds), 108 (scaling bounds) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 166 – 170, 174 (bound update equations), and 192 – 202 (table and formula based bound update techniques most for signals to be filtered)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 9, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the function includes a linear function [Cui Paragraphs 93 – 94 (offset adjustments as linear functions), 106 (LUT for a non-linear function), and 108 (scaling bounds as a linear function) or Gisquet Paragraphs 165 – 175 (linear functions in the clipping functions for adjusting the clipping bounds), 192 – 205 (the equations in Paragraphs 192 and 195 – 197 (linear adjustment function) and the tables used)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 10, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining that the video codec uses an internal dynamic range corresponding to the first bitdepth that is higher than the second bitdepth used by input signals of the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 73 – 80 (LMCS coding tool where a standard / low and high dynamic range is used rendering obvious different bit depths used)];
scaling down the clipping range to be applied to an internal signal of the video codec to a scaled clipping range having the second bitdepth [Cui Figures 2, 4, and 7 as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 and 77 (render obvious same / similar clipping functionality in encoders / decoders so the teachings of standard to high dynamic range in Paragraphs 72 – 74 and 79 – 81 using LMCS would be obvious to go from high dynamic range to low dynamic range) and 103 – 109 (scaling the range for conversion between ranges in LMCS by a factor)]; and
including the scaled clipping range having the second bitdepth into the bitstream [Cui Figures 2, 4, and 7 as well as Paragraphs 73 – 80 (LMCS coding tool where a standard / low and high dynamic range is used rendering obvious different bit depths used) and 103 – 109 (scale factor used in clipping in LMCS for the high dynamic range the signal is being converted to and then clipped in conversion of the domain mapping (LMCS)) where Paragraphs 68 – 72 and 75 – 83 (render obvious bounds determinations being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream as syntax elements)].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 11, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
including at least an unsigned value in the bitstream to indicate the clipping range, the unsigned value indicating an offset to one of a minimal value and a maximal value of a predefined clipping range [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax rendering obvious features claimed regarding the unsigned value to one of ordinary skill in the art))].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 12, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
the applying comprises [See claim 1 “applying …” limitation for citations]:
applying the clipping range on the sample values that are final values from a processing stage of the video codec to generate the clipped sample values, interim values within the processing stage not being clipped [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction), and 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS where the reconstructed samples are clipped, but not the intermediate samples (the initial / pre-processing clips samples as well)))].
Same claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 13, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of sample values of one or more pictures [Cui Figure 4 (see at least reference character 300 and the “encoded video bitstream” input) as well as Paragraphs 147 – 150 (decoder input of video and syntax elements including syntax in Paragraphs 25 – 27, 68 – 72, and 77 – 83 at least)];
determining a clipping range according to one or more syntax elements in the coded video bitstream [Cui Figures 2 – 4 (see at least reference character 300 receiving a bitstream) and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 68 – 72 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements), and 77 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping)],
the clipping range being scaled up to a first bitdepth of a video codec for encoding/decoding the coded information from a second bitdepth of the sample values of the one or more pictures when the second bitdepth of the sample values of the one or more pictures is less than the first bitdepth of the video codec [Cui Figures 2 – 4 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values), 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values to signal or alternatively Smin and Smax), 100 – 109 (scaling between ranges from the picture range to an internal range in which the scaling is down to the picture range from the internal codec range),142, 160, and 166 – 168 (adjusting ranges based on maximum allowed range for encoders and decoders); Gisquet Figures 3 and 5 as well as Paragraphs 30 – 44 (scale factor determination in which the scale factor scales down the encoder range to the picture range / smaller range than the encoder / maximum bit depth), 49 – 57 (scale factor to scale down clipping range as the bitdepth is less than the maximum in at least Paragraph 51), 62 – 78 (similar the scaling is a scale down factor), 79 – 91 (see additionally TCScale parameter), and 189 – 191 (smaller range than the maximum range the scale factor is computed for), 194 – 203 (5 – 8 bits for a clipping range to scale down from 16 bits), and 211 – 224 (scaling ranges and refining adaptable ranges)];
determining a configuration of a coding tool in the video codec based on the clipping range [Cui Figures 2 – 4 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), and 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS)]; and
reconstructing the one or more pictures based on the video codec with the coding tool configured according to the configuration [Cui Figures 2 (see all elements as parts of the reconstruction in Figure 4 with clipping considerations at least in Figure 7 (see at least reference characters 524, 526, and 528)) as well as 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS), and 132 – 139 (reconstruction of blocks and clipping for a decoder)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet as claim 13 is the faithful inverse of the encoder of claim 1 (e.g. See Cui Paragraphs 148 – 150), similar motivation exists.
Regarding claim 14, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the clipping range is applied to input values of a prefiltering stage during an encoding of the sample values [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 72 – 80 (clipping for range conformance / pre-processing of signals for encoding / decoding), and 102 – 108 (pre-processing by applying the updated clipping bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools)],
the determining the configuration of the coding tool comprises [See next limitation for citations]:
determining a configuration of an in-loop filter for reconstruction in the video codec based on information of the clipping range [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 (see encoder in Figure 3 and method for determining clipping bounds in encoding in Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (similar processing in encoding / decoding regarding adaptive clipping bound), 44 (various codecs using clipping ranges), 68 – 75 (encoder generates information for decoder and signals syntax elements with coding tools such as ALF (obvious variant of the claimed in-loop filtering)), 75 – 83 (bounds determinations for pictures in video being coded / decoded for adaptive clipping and signaling in the bitstream), and 103 – 108 (scaling the range, using offsets / look up tables, or different bounds at least in MCTF or LMCS coding tools); Gisquet Figure 5 (see at least reference characters 505 and 509) as well as Paragraphs 182 – 184 (filtering skipped leads to the clipping bounds not being modified / updated thus not signaled in the bitstream as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art rendering obvious the omission of the bounds as skipping the filtering as the configuration (omission))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 15, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the clipping range is applied to output values of a prefiltering stage during an encoding of the sample values [Cui Figures 2 (see all elements as parts of the reconstruction process), 4 and 7 as well as 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), 103 – 108 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF where in Paragraphs 103 the preprocessing clipping renders obvious the pre-filtering stage claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)],
the determining the configuration of the coding tool comprises [See next limitation for citations]:
determining a configuration of a motion compensation tool of the video codec based on information of the clipping range [Cui Figures 2 (see all elements as parts of the reconstruction process), 4 and 7 as well as 75, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction where the function affects the clipping ranges set), 102 – 106 and 135 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF thus the clipping range affects the motion compensation tool to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 16, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein a subject signal for applying a clipping operation has a dynamic range that is modified based on a function [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (obviousness between encoders / decoders), 89 – 91 (bit shifts on bounds), 93 – 94 (offset shifts on bounds), 108 (scaling bounds) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 166 – 170, 174 (bound update equations), and 192 – 202 (table and formula based bound update techniques most for signals to be filtered)], and
the method comprises at least one of [See limitations below for citations]:
applying the clipping operation with the clipping range on the subject signal without a modification of the clipping range according to the function [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 103 – 108 (using an original range / unmodified range as the obvious variants would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art)];
applying the clipping operation with a default clipping range on the subject signal [Cui Paragraphs 77 and 104 (default / original ranges)]; or
applying the clipping operation with a modified clipping range on the subject signal [Cui Figures 2 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 89 – 91 (bit shifts on bounds), 93 – 94 (offset shifts on bounds), 108 (scaling bounds) or alternatively Gisquet Paragraphs 166 – 170, 174 (bound update equations), and 192 – 202 (table and formula based bound update techniques most for signals to be filtered)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 17, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the function includes a linear function [Cui Paragraphs 93 – 94 (offset adjustments as linear functions), 106 (LUT for a non-linear function), and 108 (scaling bounds as a linear function) or Gisquet Paragraphs 165 – 175 (linear functions in the clipping functions for adjusting the clipping bounds), 192 – 205 (the equations in Paragraphs 192 and 195 – 197 (linear adjustment function) and the tables used)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 18, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the video codec uses an internal dynamic range corresponding to the first bitdepth that is higher than the second bitdepth used by input signals of the video codec [Cui Paragraphs 73 – 80 (LMCS coding tool where a standard / low and high dynamic range is used rendering obvious different bit depths used)], and
the method comprises [See limitations below for citations where Cui Paragraphs 25 – 27 and 77 render obvious same / similar clipping functionality in encoders / decoders]:
scaling up the clipping range to obtain a scaled clipping range having the first bitdepth [Cui Figures 2, 4, and 7 as well as Paragraphs 73 – 80 (LMCS coding tool where a standard / low and high dynamic range is used rendering obvious different bit depths used) and 103 – 108 (scale factor used in clipping in LMCS for the high dynamic range the signal is being converted to)]; and
applying a clipping operation with the scaled clipping range on an internal signal of the video codec [Cui Figures 2, 4, and 7 as well as Paragraphs 73 – 80 (LMCS coding tool where a standard / low and high dynamic range is used rendering obvious different bit depths used) and 103 – 109 (scale factor used in clipping in LMCS for the high dynamic range the signal is being converted to and then clipped in conversion of the domain mapping (LMCS))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 19, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
wherein the determining the clipping range comprises [See citations in the limitations below]:
determining at least an unsigned value according to the one or more syntax elements in the coded video bitstream [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting clipping bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax rendering obvious features claimed regarding the unsigned value to one of ordinary skill in the art))];
determining a sign for the unsigned value [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax rendering obvious features claimed regarding the unsigned value to one of ordinary skill in the art and the changes to the bounds in the expressions given affecting the lower and upper bounds of the range for the clipping function))]; and
determining the clipping range based on the unsigned value and the sign [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax where [Imin-Smin, Imax-Smax] as the new range based on unsigned Smin and Smax render obvious the new clipping range claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 20, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
determining a first unsigned value and a second unsigned value according to the one or more syntax elements in the coded video bitstream [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting clipping bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax rendering obvious features claimed regarding the unsigned value to one of ordinary skill in the art))];
determining to apply a first offset that is a combination of a positive sign with the first unsigned value to a minimal value of a predefined range to calculate a minimal value of the clipping range [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin (obvious variant of the first offset claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art) and Smax where [Imin-Smin, Imax-Smax] as the new range based on unsigned Smin and Smax render obvious the new clipping range claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art))]; and
determining to apply a second offset that is a combination of a negative sign with the second unsigned value to a maximal value of the predefined range to calculate a maximum value of the clipping range [Cui Figures 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 88 – 89 (shifting bound values) and 93 – 94 (see at least the Imin and Imax syntax elements / values modified by unsigned parameters Smin and Smax (obvious variant of the second offset claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art) where [Imin-Smin, Imax-Smax] as the new range based on unsigned Smin and Smax render obvious the new clipping range claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Regarding claim 21, Cui teaches signaling adaptive clipping information in the bitstream with scaling / linear techniques and bit shifting as a non-linear technique for various functions. Gisquet teaches alternative clipping bound changing algorithms, bitdepth considerations in affecting clipping bounds (e.g. use of tables for parameter selection to adjust bounds), and implicit signaling considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with those of Gisquet for adjusting the bounds of clipping functions with various considerations provided. The combination teaches
applying the clipping range on final values from a processing stage of the video codec, interim values within the processing stage not being clipped [Cui Figures 2 – 3 and 7 as well as Paragraphs 25 – 27 (obviousness between encoding / decoding processes) 75 – 77, 78 – 83 (clipping during ALF / filtering / deblocking and prediction), and 103 – 107 (clipping in motion compensation / MCTF and LMCS where the reconstructed samples are clipped, but not the intermediate samples (the initial / pre-processing clips samples as well)))].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Cui and Gisquet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0119593 A1 referred to as “Li” throughout) teaches in at least Paragraphs 142 – 146 additional table based clipping bound change techniques for a video codec. Hong, et al. (US PG PUB 2011/0243219 A1 referred to as “Hong” throughout) in Paragraphs 48 – 52, 125, and 216 – 220 teaching scaling the bitdepth and adding bits for increased computation accuracy in a related interpreation of the claim and the scaling is the shift in bits.
References considered for Obviousness-type Double Patenting based on amendments made to the claims: Chernyak, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0061717 A1 referred to as “Chernyak” throughout) and Kotra, et al. (US Patent #12,212,743 B2 referred to as “Kotra” throughout).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
