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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 29 April 2025 for application number 19/192,666. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 5/23/25.
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 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2021/0314628).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for processing video data, comprising: using, during a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video, side information as an input to an adaptive loop filter (ALF); and performing the conversion based on the ALF (par. 156).
Regarding claim 2, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises a reconstruction sample obtained before a deblocking filter (DBF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, or a bilateral filter (BF) (par. 42).
Regarding claim 3, see teachings of claims 1 and 2. Zhang further discloses wherein the reconstruction sample comprises a luma reconstruction sample used as an input source for at least one extended tap of luma or chroma online-trained filters (par. 50-52).
Regarding claim 4, see teachings of claims 1 and 2. Zhang further discloses wherein the reconstruction sample comprises a luma reconstruction sample used as an input source for luma offline-trained filters (par. 50-52).
Regarding claim 5, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises luma prediction samples used as an input source for at least one extended tap of luma or chroma online-trained filters or luma prediction samples used as an input source for luma offline-trained filters (pars. 50-55).
Regarding claim 6, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises luma residual values used as an input source for at least one extended tap of luma or chroma online-trained filters or luma residual values used as an input source for luma offline-trained filters (pars. 50-55, 94, 95).
Regarding claim 7, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises partitioning information, wherein the partitioning information comprises one or more of block size, block shape, and block location (par. 63).
Regarding claim 8, see teachings of claims 1 and 7. Zhang further discloses wherein the partitioning information comprises luma partitioning information used for classification, and wherein the classification comprises a classification of luma online-trained filters or a classification of luma offline-trained filters (pars. 50, 63, 64).
Regarding claim 9, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises quantization parameter (QP) information, wherein the QP information comprises one or more of picture QP information, slice QP information, and block level QP information (pars. 45-55).
Regarding claim 10, see teachings of claims 1 and 9. Zhang further discloses wherein the QP information comprises luma QP information used for classification of luma online-trained filters or luma QP information used for classification of luma offline-trained filters (pars. 45-55).
Regarding claim 11, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the side information comprises boundary strength information generated by a deblocking filter (par. 42).
Regarding claim 12, see teachings of claims 1 and 11. Zhang further discloses wherein the boundary strength information comprises luma boundary strength information used for classification of luma online-trained filters or luma boundary strength information used for classification of luma offline-trained filters (pars. 42, 50-55).
Regarding claim 16, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (pars. 153-158).
Regarding claim 17, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (pars. 43, 154).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
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 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0314628) in view of Sarwer et al. (US 2021/0306673).
Regarding claim 13, see teachings of claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the ALF comprises a cross component ALF (CCALF).
In the same field of endeavor, Sarwer discloses wherein the ALF comprises a cross component ALF (CCALF) (fig. 5; par. 20).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Zhang to include the teachings of Sarwer in order to improve on the deficiencies of the conventional video coding technologies (Sarwer, par. 119).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
None of the references, alone or in combination, discloses wherein the side information used as an input to the CCALF comprises at least one of: a reconstruction sample obtained before a deblocking filter (DBF), a sample adaptive offset (SAO) filter, or a bilateral filter (BF), prediction samples, or residual values, wherein the reconstruction sample comprises a luma reconstruction sample used as an input source for at least one extended tap for the CCALF; wherein the prediction samples comprise luma prediction samples used as an input source for at least one extended tap for the CCALF; wherein the residual values comprise luma residual values used as an input source for at least one extended tap for the CCALF.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights