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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
US Patent 11,743,459 B2
Claims 1-9 & 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-11, 14-15 & 19-24 of US 11,743,459 B2.
Instant 19/215,120
US 11,743,459 B2
1. A method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising:
1. A method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising:
decoding a block of video data to form a decoded block;
decoding a block of video data to form a decoded block;
applying a filter to the decoded block to form a filtered block;
applying a filter to the decoded block to form a filtered block;
multiplying samples of the filtered block by a scaling factor to form a refined filtered block; and
multiplying samples of the filtered block by a scaling factor to form a refined filtered block; and
combining samples of the refined filtered block with corresponding samples of the decoded block.
adding values of samples of the refined filtered block to corresponding values of samples of the decoded block […]
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of Patent US 11,743,459 B2.
Regarding claims (2-9, 11-19), claims (2-9, 11-19) in the instant application correspond to claims (2, 6-11, 1, 14-15, 19-24, 14), respectively, in US 11,743,459 B2.
US Patent 12,341,959 B2
Claims 1-8, 10-18 & 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-11, 14-15 & 19-24 of US 12,341,959 B2.
Instant 19/215,120
US 12,341,959 B2
1. A method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising:
1. A method of filtering decoded video data, the method comprising:
decoding a block of video data to form a decoded block;
decoding a block of video data to form a decoded block;
applying a filter to the decoded block to form a filtered block;
applying a filter to the decoded block to form a filtered block;
multiplying samples of the filtered block by a scaling factor to form a refined filtered block; and
multiplying samples of the filtered block by a scaling factor to form a refined filtered block; and
combining samples of the refined filtered block with corresponding samples of the decoded block.
adding values of samples of the refined filtered block to corresponding values of samples of the decoded block […]
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of Patent US 12,341,959 B2.
Regarding claims (2-8, 10-18 & 14), claims (2-8, 10-18 & 14) in the instant application correspond to claims (2, 6-11, 1, 14-15, 19-24 & 14), respectively, in US 12,341,959 B2.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tourapis (US 2014/0376608 A1) (hereinafter Tourapis) in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0160122 A1) (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Tourapis discloses a method of filtering decoded video data [Paragraphs [0080]-[0084], fig. 8, filtering decoded video data], the method comprising:
decoding a block of video data to form a decoded block [Paragraphs [0080]-[0084], fig. 8, Entropy decoder 818, with inverse transform 814, inverse quantization 816 to achieve decoded block output from adder 812];
applying a filter to the decoded block to form a filtered block [Paragraphs [0080]-[0084], fig. 8, Deblocking filter 832 performing deblocking filtering on recovered frame data of adder 812]; and
multiplying samples of the filtered block by a scaling factor to form a refined filtered block [Paragraphs [0037]-[0038], [0050] & [0080]-[0084], fig. 8, SAO filter 833, applying SAO offset to output of deblocking filter 832 by applying scaling factor to particular samples].
However, Tourapis does not explicitly disclose of combining samples of the refined filtered block with corresponding samples of the decoded block.
Xu teaches combining samples of the refined filtered block with corresponding samples of the decoded block [Paragraphs [0165]-[0173], Filtered and unfiltered frames, as samples of refined filtered block and corresponding samples of the decoded block, respectively, are combined together into the decoded picture buffer].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Tourapis to incorporate and implement the DPB buffering scheme of Xu as above, to store both filtered and unfiltered reference samples in the decoded picture buffer to accommodate different decoding prediction modes, either intra or temporal, while decoding video (Xu, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses of further comprising decoding a value of a syntax element representing the scaling factor [Paragraphs [0037]-[0038], extracting parameters specifying how the SAO offset is to be applied, wherein a saoShiftOffset or SaoOffset parameters may be used to signal a particular scaling factor].
Regarding claim 4, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses wherein the scaling factor comprises a first scaling factor of a plurality of scaling factors, and wherein multiplying the samples of the filtered block by the scaling factor comprises multiplying the samples of the filtered block by each of the scaling factors in the plurality of scaling factors [Paragraphs [0037]-[0038], scaling parameter may specify a particular scaling factor that is to be applied to particular samples, being plurality of scaling factors applied to particular samples].
Regarding claim 5, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses wherein multiplying the samples of the filtered block by the scaling factor to form the refined filtered block further comprises adding an offset to products of the samples of the filtered block and the scaling factor to form the refined filtered block [Paragraphs [0037]-[0042], scaling parameter may specify a particular scaling factor that is to be applied to particular samples and offset added via bitshifted bitDepth].
Regarding claim 6, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses wherein multiplying the samples of the filtered block by the scaling factor to form the refined filtered block further comprises:
determining an offset value; applying a bitwise shift to the offset value to form a shifted offset value; and adding the shifted offset value to products of the samples of the filtered block and the scaling factor to form the refined filtered block [Paragraphs [0037]-[0042], SaoOffset = offsetSign*saoOffsetAbs << saoShiftOffset, SaoOffset = offsetSign*saoOffsetAbs << (bitDepth) – Min(bitDepth, 10))].
Regarding claim 8, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses of further comprising, prior to multiplying the samples of the filtered block by the scaling factor, determining that a syntax element representing whether to refine the filtered block has a value indicating to refine the filtered block [Paragraphs [0032], flag if (sample_adaptive_offset_enabled_flag), as syntax element whether to refine via SAO].
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-16 & 18, claims (11-12, 14-16 & 18) are drawn to devices for filtering decoded video data, respectively having limitations similar to the decoding methods of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2, 4-6 & 8) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claims (11-12, 14-16 & 18) correspond to method claims (1-2, 4-6 & 8) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses a device for filtering decoded video data comprising a memory configured to store video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry [Paragraphs [0078]-[0084] & [0087], Figs. 7-8, Decoder 800 including deblocking and SAO filters Paragraphs [0087], the processing device may include a device such as a central processing unit, microcontroller, or other integrated circuit that is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory. Memory may include any form of tangible media that is capable of storing instructions, including but not limited to RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, and optical discs].
Claims 3 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tourapis (US 2014/0376608 A1) (hereinafter Tourapis) and Xu et al. (US 2018/0160122 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Koishida et al. (US 2009/0248424 A1) (hereinafter Koishida).
Regarding claim 3, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However neither Tourapis nor Xu disclose the particulars of claim 3.
Koshida teaches further comprising inverse quantizing the value of the syntax element by an integer value having a pre-defined bit accuracy [Paragraph [0024], [0106]-[0111], wherein integer inverse quantization is performed, wherein integers are represented by pre-defined bits].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Tourapis to incorporate and implement the inverse integer quantizer of Koishida as above, to reverse and reconstruct the compressed video data (Koishida, Paragraph [0024] & [0111]).
Regarding claims 13, claims (13) are drawn to devices for filtering decoded video data, respectively having limitations similar to the decoding methods of using the same as claimed in claims (3) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claims (13) correspond to method claims (3) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Tourapis (US 2014/0376608 A1) (hereinafter Tourapis) and Xu et al. (US 2018/0160122 A1) (hereinafter Xu) in view of Yin et al. (US 2019/0273948 A1) (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 7, Tourapis and Xu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Tourapis and Xu do not explicitly disclose the particulars of claim 7.
Yin teaches wherein applying the filter comprises applying at least one of a neural network-based filter, a neural network-based loop filter, a neural network-based post loop filter, an adaptive in-loop filter, or a pre-defined adaptive in-loop filter [Paragraph [0060] & [0097], alternative neural networks receive reconstructed image data of regions already modified by three in-loop filters ALF, SAO, and DBF].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tourapis to incorporate the filtered-reconstructed video data of Yin as above, improve the quality of reconstructed video through in-loop filters prior to neural networks (Yin, Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claims 17, claims (17) are drawn to devices for filtering decoded video data, respectively having limitations similar to the decoding methods of using the same as claimed in claims (7) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, device claims (17) correspond to method claims (7) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Tourapis discloses a device for filtering decoded video data [Paragraphs [0078]-[0084] & [0087], Figs. 7-8, Decoder 800 including deblocking and SAO filters Paragraphs [0087], the processing device may include a device such as a central processing unit, microcontroller, or other integrated circuit that is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory. Memory may include any form of tangible media that is capable of storing instructions, including but not limited to RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, and optical discs].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 & 19-20 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 and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights