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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on June 18, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed on June 17, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 20, it has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, regarding the Double Patent rejections and the 35 USC 103 rejection, these rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application 19362024 in view of Yin et al. (Yin), US PGPUB 20250063166 A1, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application 19251453, in view of Yin et al. (Yin), US PGPUB 20250063166 A1if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application 19293334, in view of Yin et al. (Yin), US PGPUB 20250063166 A1 if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application 19178365, in view of Yin et al. (Yin), US PGPUB 20250063166 A1if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However, different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Instant application- 18178180: - Note* bold means different in instant application
Co-pending application 19362024
1. A method for processing video data, comprising:
determining to apply at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF); and
determining to use at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF); and
performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF, wherein a coefficient of the at least one extended tap corresponds to multiple input samples, and the multiple input samples are designed in an asymmetrical way.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The mapping between instant application 18178180 and co-pending application 19251453 is similar to above mapping.
The mapping between instant application 18178180 and co-pending application 19178365 is similar to above mapping.
The mapping between instant application 18178180 and co-pending application 19293334 is similar to above mapping
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (US 20220030232 A1) in view of CHEN et al (US 20240031567 A1) in view of Yin et al. (Yin), US PGPUB 20250063166.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a method for processing video data [e.g. FIG. 12-13], comprising: determining to apply at least one tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF) [e.g. FIG. 2, 12 and 6-8; filter 216; determine an ALF from one of multiple ALF filter sets; the filter shapes have 7 taps and 5 taps for luma and chroma components] and performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video based on the ALF [e.g. FIG. 12].
It is noted that Hu is differs to the present invention in that Hu fails to explicitly disclose on extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF).
However, CHEN teaches the well-known concept of determining to apply at least one extended tap [e.g. [0090-0092]; taps can be extended for an ALF] in an adaptive loop filter (ALF) for encoding a video [e.g. FIG. 5; ALF for video coding].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system disclosed by Hu to exploit the well-known an adaptive loop filtering technique taught by CHEN as above, in order to provide improved coding performance [See CHEN; [0092]]. However, Hu-Chin does explicitly disclose wherein a coefficient of the at least one extended tap corresponds to multiple input samples, and the multiple input samples are designed in an asymmetrical way.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Yin discloses wherein a coefficient of the at least one extended tap corresponds to multiple input samples, and the multiple input samples are designed in an asymmetrical way (see Yin, Table 3, paras. 0145-0148.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have Yin’s mechanism for processing video data comprising determining one or more extended taps for use in an adaptive loop filter with the system and method of Hu-Chen, for the purpose to have a system that provides a more efficient way of dealing large amounts of bandwidth demands.
Regarding claim 2, Hu and CHEN further disclose the ALF employs at least one spatial tap that utilizes information of spatial neighbor samples of a targeting component [e.g. HU: FIG. 8-9; [0100-0102]; filter tap location], wherein the at least one extended tap is different from the at least one spatial tap [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5; ALF], and wherein the spatial neighbor samples are from reconstruction after a deblocking filter (DBF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter [e.g. Hu: SAO], or a bilateral filter (BF).
Regarding claim 3, Hu and CHEN further disclose the at least one extended tap and the at least one spatial tap co-exist inside the ALF [e.g. Hu: FIG. 2, 6-8 and 12; CHEN: FIG. 5; ALF].
Regarding claim 4, Hu and CHEN further disclose the at least one extended tap uses a single input source selected from: reconstruction before a deblocking filter (DBF), an intermediate filtering result of a pre-defamed filter [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5; ALF], or reconstruction before a sample adaptive offset (SAO) or a bilateral filter (BF), or alternatively wherein the at least one extended tap uses multiple input sources selected from: reconstruction before DBF and an intermediate filtering result of a pre-defined filter.
Regarding claim 5, Hu and CHEN further disclose a coefficient of the at least one extended tap corresponds to one single input sample [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5].
Regarding claim 6, Hu and CHEN further disclose a coefficient of the at least one extended tap corresponds to multiple input samples, and wherein the multiple input samples are designed in a symmetrical way [e.g. Hu: FIG. 2, 6-8 and 12; CHEN: FIG. 4-5; e.g. applying the geometric transformation to samples in a filter support region. The motivation for performing the geometric transformation can include performing the ALF for each block more similarly by aligning the directionality of the respective block], or alternatively, wherein the multiple input samples are designed in an asymmetrical way.
Regarding claim 7, Hu and CHEN further disclose a filter shape used for the at least one spatial tap inside the ALF is a symmetrical shape including a diamond shape or a cross shape [e.g. Hu: FIG. 2, 6-8 and 12; CHEN: FIG. 4], and wherein a filter shape used for the at least one extended tap inside the ALF is a symmetrical shape including a diamond shape or a cross shape [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5].
Regarding claim 8, Hu and CHEN further disclose the filter shape used for the at least one spatial tap is a diamond shape with a height of nine samples and a width of nine samples [e.g. Hu: [0073]; 9X9 diamond shape].
Regarding claim 9, Hu and CHEN further disclose the filter shape for the at least one spatial tap is a cross shape with a height of thirteen samples and a width of thirteen samples [e.g. Hu: [0073-0075]. CHEN: [0085]; 13X13 diamond shape].
Regarding claim 10, Hu and CHEN further disclose input samples of the at least one extended tap are padded among boundaries, wherein padding is applied to a boundary including a picture or sub-picture boundary [e.g. Hu: FIG. 7-9; filtering at a boundary; CHEN: FIG. 5; [0085]]; , a coding tree unit (CTU) or coding tree block (CTB) boundary, or a virtual boundary, and wherein the padding includes a mirrored padding.
Regarding claim 11, Hu and CHEN further disclose a first syntax element is signaled to indicate whether a filter with the at least one extended tap is enabled [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5; [0090-0092]; taps can be extended for an ALF], and wherein the first syntax element is binarized by unary code, truncated unary code, fixed-length code [e.g. Hu: [0079]; fixed length code; CHEN: FIG. 4-5], exponential Golomb code, or truncated exponential Golomb code, and wherein a second syntax element is signaled to indicate input sources that are used for the extended tap inside the ALF filter, and wherein the second syntax element is binarized by unary code, truncated unary code, fixed-length code [e.g. Hu: [0079]; fixed length code; CHEN: FIG. 4-5], exponential Golomb code, or truncated exponential Golomb code [e.g. Hu: [0074]; Golomb code; CHEN: FIG. 4-5].
Regarding claim 12, Hu and CHEN further disclose information of the at least one extended tap inside the ALF filter is signaled in an adaptation parameter set (APS), wherein the APS includes coefficients of the at least one extended tap, and/or clipping parameters of the at least one extended tap [e.g. Hu: e.g. encode multiple adaptive loop filter sets in an adaptation parameter set; CHEN: FIG. 5; [0090-0092]; taps can be extended for an ALF].
Regarding claim 13, Hu and CHEN further disclose an intermediate filtering result of a filter is used as an input for the at least one extended tap [e.g. Hu: FIG. 2, 6-8 and 12; CHEN: FIG. 5], wherein the filter is a Gaussian filter or an offline-trained-filter of the ALF [e.g. CHEN: offline training], wherein the intermediate filtering result of the offline-trained-filter of the ALF is generated by reconstruction before the ALF and the offline-trained-filter of the ALF [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5; [0072]], or generated by reconstruction before a deblocking filter (DBF) and the offline-trained-filter of the ALF, wherein an input for the intermediate filtering includes reconstruction samples from before or after ALF of a current or reference frame [e.g. CHEN: FIG. 5; [0072-0075]], or reconstruction samples from before or after DBF of the current or reference frame, and wherein reconstruction samples from before or after DBF of the current frame are used as input to the at least one extended tap.
Regarding claim 14, Hu and CHEN further disclose whether the at least one extended tap takes information from one or more previously coded frames in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) is based on a slice or picture type [[e.g. Hu: FIG. 2, 6-8 and 12; [0073]; the output samples of an ALF are stored in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) or sent out as output pictures; CHEN: FIG. 5], and the at least one extended tap taking information from the previously coded frame is only applicable to inter-coded slices or pictures [e.g. Hu: FIG. 12-13; reference pictures; CHEN: FIG. 2-5; reference pictures for inter predictions, or wherein whether to take information from the previously coded frame is dependent on an availability of one or more reference pictures .
Regarding claim 15, Hu and CHEN further disclose the ALF comprises a cross-component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) [e.g. Hu: CCALF filter; CHEN: FIG. 5; CC-ALF].
Regarding claim 16, Hu and CHEN further disclose the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream [e.g. Hu: 13; CHEN: decoder].
Regarding claim 17, Hu and CHEN further disclose the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream [e.g. Hu: 12; CHEN: encoder].
Regarding claim 18, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19-20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
in.
Regarding claim 21, Hu-Chen and Yin discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the ALF employs at least one spatial tap that utilizes information of spatial neighbor samples of a targeting component, where the at least one extended tap is different from the at least one spatial tap, and wherein the spatial neighbor samples are from reconstruction after deblocking filter (DBF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, or a bilateral filter (BF), [see rejection of claims 1 and 4 above].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights