DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no. 19/203,334 filed on 05/09/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 for 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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/937,366 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the current claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 10 of the cited application no. ‘366. Note that the current claim recitation “to improve an efficiency of the ALF” merely states the desired outcome of extended tap in ALF. The phrase is treated as a statement of intended result, and is not given a patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of application no. ‘366 teaches “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method… (See claim 20 of ‘366).
Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1.
Table 1 below shows the comparison between the current claims and the claims of appl. no. ‘366.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
TABLE 1
Current claim
Application No. 18/937,366
1. A method for processing video data, comprising: employing, during a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream, at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF) to improve an efficiency of the ALF; and performing the conversion based on the ALF, wherein the at least one extended tap and at least one spatial tap co-exist in the ALF.
1. A method for processing video data comprising: determining one or more extended taps for use in an adaptive loop filter (ALF); and performing a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream based on the extended taps in the ALF.
10. The method of claim 3, wherein at least one extended tap and at least one spatial tap co-exist inside one ALF filter, or the ALF filter includes only one or more spatial taps, or the ALF filter includes only one or more extended taps; wherein a filter with at least one extended tap is applied to filter different color components.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 19/178,180 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the current claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 3 of the cited application no. ‘180. Note that the current claim recitation “to improve an efficiency of the ALF” merely states the desired outcome of extended tap in ALF. The phrase is treated as a statement of intended result, and is not given a patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of application no. ‘180teaches “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method… (See claim 20 of ‘180).
Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1.
Table 2 below shows the comparison between the current claims and the claims of appl. no. ‘180.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
TABLE 2
Current claim
Application No. 19/178,180
1. A method for processing video data, comprising: employing, during a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream, at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF) to improve an efficiency of the ALF; and performing the conversion based on the ALF, wherein the at least one extended tap and at least one spatial tap co-exist in the ALF.
1. A method for processing video data, comprising: determining to apply 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. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one extended tap and the at least one spatial tap co-exist inside the ALF.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the ALF contains different shapes for the at least one spatial tap and the at least one extended tap inside the ALF, wherein a filter shape used for the at least one spatial tap of the ALF with the at least one extended tap is a symmetrical shape which includes a diamond shape, or cross shape; and wherein a filter shape used for the at least one extended tap of the ALF filter with the at least one extended tap is a symmetrical shape which includes a diamond shape, or cross shape.” The claim requires that “the ALF contains different shapes” for the spatial tap and extended tap. However, the claim further recites a filter shape used for the spatial tap of the ALF includes “a diamond shape, or cross shape” and that a filter shape used for the extended tap of the ALF includes “a diamond shape, or cross shape” which contradicts with the requirement that “the ALF contains different shapes”. Therefore, is unclear whether the claim requires the ALF contain different shapes, rendering the scope of the claim uncertain.
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, 2, 4-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 20170339432 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20240031567 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chao teaches a method for processing video data, comprising: employing, during a conversion between a visual media data and a bitstream (¶0036-0037: FIG. 1 shows an encoder 100…the encoder 100 receives input video data 101 and performs a video compression process to generate a bitstream 102 as an output)…an adaptive loop filter (ALF) to improve an efficiency of the ALF (¶0001, 0036-0037: High Efficiency ALF Processing for Video Coding. See FIG. 1, an adaptive loop filter (ALF) 134); and performing the conversion based on the ALF (¶0038, 0046-0047: ALF processing).
Chao does not teach at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF) …wherein the at least one extended tap and at least one spatial tap co-exist in the ALF.
However, Chen teaches at least one extended tap in an adaptive loop filter (ALF)…wherein the at least one extended tap and at least one spatial tap co-exist in the ALF (¶0091: FIG. 8 shows an example of an extended filter including filtering taps (or filtering coefficients). The extended filter in FIG. 8 can be an adaptive filter (e.g., an ALF) that is extended, for example, from a filter in the adaptive filter set …The filtering taps in the adaptive filter shown in FIG. 8 can include first taps or first coefficients (e.g., also referred to as spatial taps) including c0 to c19 and second taps or second coefficients including c20 to c27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chao’s image processing method by incorporating the teaching of Chen as noted above, in order to improve the performance of the ALF (Chen: ¶0091).
Regarding claim 2, Chao teaches wherein the at least one spatial tap is configured to utilize information of spatial neighbor samples of a target component; wherein the spatial neighbor samples neighbor a central sample to be filtered; and wherein the spatial neighbor samples are reconstructed and obtained after application of a deblocking filter (DBF), a sample adaptive offset filter (SAO), or a bilateral filter (BF) (¶0092: FIG. 12 shows an ALF 1200…The block buffer 1210 is configured to store pre-ALF data. The pre-ALF data can include a DF/SAO ready block currently being processed, and one or more side buffers (such as a top buffer, left buffer, or the like) for storing the P+Q columns or R+S rows of samples from a previous DF/SAO ready block as described above [see e.g., FIG 6]…The ALF circuit 1230 is configured to receive samples from the block buffer 1210 and perform ALF processing for target pixels in the block 1220).
Moreover, Chen teaches wherein the at least one spatial tap is different than the at least one extended tap (¶0091: FIG. 8 can include first taps or first coefficients (e.g., also referred to as spatial taps) including c0 to c19 and second taps or second coefficients including c20 to c27). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 4, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein the ALF with the at least one extended tap is only applied to process a luma component (¶0091: Offline-filtered taps can provide additional information for ALF luma filtering. In an example, an extension of offline-filtered taps is used to enhance the performance of an ALF. FIG. 8 shows an example of an extended filter including filtering taps (or filtering coefficients)…). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein a coefficient of the at least one extended tap of the ALF only corresponds to one input sample (¶0091: FIG. 8 can include first taps or first coefficients (e.g., also referred to as spatial taps) including c0 to c19 and second taps or second coefficients including c20 to c27). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein a coefficient of the at least one extended tap of the ALF corresponds to N input samples (¶0091: FIG. 8 can include first taps or first coefficients (e.g., also referred to as spatial taps) including c0 to c19 and second taps or second coefficients including c20 to c27… both the first taps (e.g., the spatial filter taps such as c.sub.0 to c.sub.19) and the second taps (e.g., c.sub.20 to c.sub.27) that are applied to offline filtered results or samples are used to filter a sample), wherein N is a positive integer (¶0103: the one or more first filters can include p filter(s) (e.g., p fixed filters) with coefficients trained for a corresponding classifiers C.sub.i, where p is a positive number and i can be from 0 to p−1), and wherein the N input samples are designed in a symmetrical way (¶0091, 0120: in FIG. 8, the spatial taps (e.g., c.sub.0 to c.sub.19) are kept the same with a diamond shape (e.g., c.sub.0 to c.sub.19 in FIG. 8 correspond to c.sub.0 to c.sub.19 in Eq. 12)...). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a filter shape used for the at least one spatial tap of the ALF with the at least one extended tap is a symmetrical shape which includes a diamond shape, or cross shape (¶0071: a diamond shape. See FIGS. 6 and 12).
Moreover, Chen teaches wherein the ALF contains different shapes for the at least one spatial tap and the at least one extended tap inside the ALF…and wherein a filter shape used for the at least one extended tap of the ALF filter with the at least one extended tap is a symmetrical shape which includes a diamond shape, or cross shape (See FIG. 8, diamond shape filter shape). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 8, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 7. Chen further teaches the limitation of claim 8 (See Fig. 8). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Chao teaches the limitation of claim 9 (See FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein a first syntax element is included in the bitstream to indicate whether a filter with the at least one extended tap is enabled; wherein a second syntax element is signaled to indicate which or what input sources are used for the at least one extended tap inside the ALF; and wherein the first syntax element and the second syntax element are binarized by unary code, truncated unary code, fixed-length code, exponential Golomb code, or truncated exponential Golomb code (¶0091: The extended filter in FIG. 8 can be an adaptive filter (e.g., an ALF) that is extended…the adaptive filter including the filtering taps c.sub.0 to c.sub.27 is signaled. ¶0097, 0105: the second filter is selected from an adaptive filter set signaled in the bitstream). Note that the recited “binarized by unary code, truncated unary code, fixed-length code, exponential Golomb code, or truncated exponential Golomb code” are well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein one or more coefficients of the at least one extended tap inside the ALF are contained in an APS; or wherein clipping parameters of the at least one extended tap are contained in the APS (¶0072, 0089: Filter coefficients and clipping indices can be carried (or signaled) in ALF adaptive parameter sets (APSs)). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 13 , Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein an intermediate filtering result of an offline-trained filter is used as input for the at least one extended tap inside the ALF, and wherein the intermediate filtering result is generated by reconstruction before the ALF and the offline-trained-filters of the ALF; or wherein the intermediate filtering result is generated by reconstruction before a deblocking filter (DBF) and the offline-trained-filters of the ALF, or wherein the intermediate filtering result is generated by a pre-defined filter, and preferably, wherein the pre-defined filter includes a gauss filter (¶0072, 0091: The offline-filtering taps can be extended for an ALF. Offline-filtered taps can provide additional information for ALF luma filtering. In an example, an extension of offline-filtered taps is used to enhance the performance of an ALF). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 14, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen further teaches wherein residual samples of a current frame are used as input for the at least one extended tap inside the ALF (¶0091: The extended filter in FIG. 8 can be an adaptive filter (e.g., an ALF) that is extended…in FIG. 8, the spatial taps (e.g., c.sub.0 to c.sub.19) are kept the same with a diamond shape (e.g., c.sub.0 to c.sub.19 in FIG. 8 correspond to c.sub.0 to c.sub.19 in Eq. 12), and a number of the second taps (e.g., c.sub.20 to c.sub.27) applied to results (or outputs)…). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 15, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ALF comprises more than one sub-filter, wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on samples in reference pictures; wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on samples in a current picture; wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on neighbor samples that are neighboring to a current sample, wherein the neighbor samples are adjacent neighbor or non-adjacent neighbor samples to the current sample; wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on reconstruction samples; wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on prediction samples; wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on residual samples; or wherein one of the more than one sub-filter is based on samples before DBF or SAO or CCSAO or BF (¶0046-0047: The deblocked reconstructed samples can then be provided to the SAO 132. The SAO 132 receives the deblocked reconstructed samples and categorizes pixels in the reconstructed video data into groups. The SAO 132 can then determine an intensity shift (offset value) for each group to compensate intensity shifts of each group. The shifted reconstructed video data can then be provided from the SAO 132 to the ALF 134).
Regarding claim 16, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual media data into the bitstream (¶0036-0037: FIG. 1 shows an encoder 100…the encoder 100 receives input video data 101 and performs a video compression process to generate a bitstream 102 as an output).
Regarding claim 17, Chao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual media data from the bitstream (¶0052: the decoder 200 receives a bitstream 201 from an encoder, such as the bitstream 102 from the encoder 100, and performs a decompression process to generate output video data 202).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 20170339432 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20240031567 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20240015337 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen teaches wherein an input source for the at least one extended tap of the ALF ( (¶0091: FIG. 8 shows an example of an extended filter including filtering taps (or filtering coefficients). The extended filter in FIG. 8 can be an adaptive filter (e.g., an ALF) that is extended, for example, from a filter in the adaptive filter set …).
Chao in view of Chen do not teach the ALF is based on at least one of: reconstruction before a deblocking filter (DBF), an intermediate filtering result of a pre-defined filter, or residual samples, and preferably, wherein the residual samples are filtered residual samples.
Hu teaches the ALF is based on at least one of: reconstruction before a deblocking filter (DBF), an intermediate filtering result of a pre-defined filter, or residual samples, and preferably, wherein the residual samples are filtered residual samples (¶0154-0155: FIG. 12 shows an example of using samples before DBF for ALF. ..samples before DBF and samples before SAO are used for ALF filtering).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chao’s image processing method by incorporating the teaching of Hu as noted above, in order to improve the performance of ALF (Hu: ¶0151, 0154).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 20170339432 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20240031567 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kanoh et al. (US 20190327490 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chao in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1. Chen teaches wherein input samples of the at least one extended tap (¶0091: FIG. 8 shows an example of an extended filter including filtering taps (or filtering coefficients). The extended filter in FIG. 8 can be an adaptive filter (e.g., an ALF) that is extended, for example, from a filter in the adaptive filter set …)… and wherein the boundaries include: a picture boundary, a sub-picture boundary, a slice boundary, a tile boundary, a coding tree unit (CTU) boundary, a coding tree block (CTB) boundary, or a virtual boundary (¶0088: horizontal/vertical edges).
Chao in view of Chen do not teach extended tap are padded among boundaries…and wherein different padding methods are applied to the boundaries, and wherein the different padding methods include: extended padding, mirrored padding, or duplicated padding.
However, Kanoh teaches extended tap are padded among boundaries…and wherein different padding methods are applied to the boundaries, and wherein the different padding methods include: extended padding, mirrored padding, or duplicated padding (¶0300: encoder 100 uses, for example, (1) zero filling by setting the value of zero in a complementary region, (2) padding by duplicating, in a complementary region, values at the boundary between a current block and the complementary region, (3) mirroring by duplicating values in a complementary region symmetrically relative to the boundary).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chao’s image processing method by incorporating the teaching of Kanoh as noted above, in order to improve the coding efficiency (Kanoh ¶0056).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chao et al. (US 20170339432 A1).
Claim 20 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus…” is applying product-by-process type claim language, where the bitstream is being described as a product that is the result of a method performed by a video processing apparatus. The method steps are not required elements of the CRM because they only describe the scope of the product, which in this claim is the bitstream. The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The claim recites the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how video content can be converted into a bitstream, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium. See Id. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chao which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0050).
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yin et al. (US 20250063206 A1) describes “FILTER SHAPE SWITCH FOR ADAPTIVE LOOP FILTER IN VIDEO CODING” Title.
Zhang et al. (US 20180041779 A1) describes “GEOMETRY TRANSFORMATION-BASED ADAPTIVE LOOP FILTERING” Title.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights