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 § 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.
Claim 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the patented claim wholly encompasses the scope of the current invention.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,335,470
1. A video decoding method, comprising:
decoding a bitstream associated with one or more pictures, wherein the decoding of the bitstream reconstructs a first luma block and a first chroma block, the first luma block and first chroma block being collocated;
determining a direction of luma samples in the first luma block;
filtering the first chroma block based on the determined direction, to generate a second chroma block;
determining an offset for a chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction, wherein the offset is determined based on the first luma block and the determined direction;
adding the offset to the second chroma block, to generate a third chroma block; and
generating a decoded video frame based on the third chroma block.
1. A video decoding method, comprising:
receiving a reconstructed luma block and a first reconstructed chroma block, the reconstructed luma block and the first reconstructed chroma block forming an input to a constraint directional enhancement filter;
determining a direction of the reconstructed luma block;
applying the constraint directional enhancement filter to determine a second reconstructed chroma block based on the first reconstructed chroma block and the direction of the reconstructed luma block;
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter with a cross shape;
determining an offset by applying the cross-shape directional cross component filter to samples of the reconstructed luma block that are along the determined direction;
adding the offset to the second reconstructed chroma block; and
generating a reconstructed video frame based on the second reconstructed chroma block.
16. A method of storing a bitstream of a video, the method comprising:
reconstructing, based on an input video frame, a luma block and a chroma block, the reconstructed luma and chroma blocks being collocated;
determining a direction of luma samples in the reconstructed luma block;
determining a set of filter coefficients for a chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction, wherein the set of filter coefficients is determined based on the input video frame and the reconstructed luma block;
generating a bitstream comprising the set of filter coefficients; and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable medium.
21. A method of storing a bitstream of a video, the method comprising:
receiving a reconstructed luma block and a first reconstructed chroma block, the reconstructed luma block and the first reconstructed chroma block forming an input to a constraint directional enhancement filter;
determining a direction of the reconstructed luma block;
applying the constraint directional enhancement filter to determine a second reconstructed chroma block based on the first reconstructed chroma block and the direction of the reconstructed luma block;
determining a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter with a cross shape;
determining an offset by applying the cross-shape directional cross component filter to samples of the reconstructed luma block that are along the determined direction;
adding the offset to the second reconstructed chroma block;
generating a reconstructed video frame based on the second reconstructed chroma block;
generating a bitstream comprising coded information signaling the plurality of filter coefficients; and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,470 in view of Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,335,470 claims a video encoding method, comprising:
reconstructing a luma block and a chroma block based on the encoded video frame, the reconstructed luma and chroma blocks being collocated (claim 1, col 39, lines 24 – 27);
determining a direction of luma samples in the reconstructed luma block (claim 1, col 39, line 28); and
determining a set of filter coefficients for a chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction, wherein the set of filter coefficients is determined based on the input video frame and the reconstructed luma block (claim 1, col 39, lines 33 – 35).
Du, however, teaches an encoding method:
encoding an input video frame (e.g. Fig. 6, element 603, and pars. 76 – 79: depicting and describing that the system encodes pictures of an input video sequence, wherein pictures of an input video sequence is the equivalent of the input video frame);
encoding the set of filter coefficients into a bitstream (e.g. par. 157: describing that filter coefficients are transmitted in the bitstream, wherein it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order for the filter coefficients to be transmitted in the bitstream, they must necessarily be encoded into the bitstream).
It therefore would have been obvious to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,470 by adding the teachings of Du in order to encode an input frame and in order to encode the set of filter coefficients into a bitstream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification allows for processing video data in an encoder.
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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "wherein filtering the reconstructed luma block…comprises" in line. Claim 1, however, the claim upon which claim 8 properly depends, does not recite a limitation for filtering the reconstructed luma. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 – 3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches a video decoding method, comprising:
decoding a bitstream associated with one or more pictures, wherein the decoding of the bitstream reconstructs a first luma block and a first chroma block, the first luma block and first chroma block being collocated (e.g. Fig. 5, and pars. 62 - 64: depicting and describing that the system decodes a coded video sequence by reconstructing coded video from the video sequence, the video including a luma block and a chroma block co-located with the luma block);
determining a direction of luma samples in the first luma block (e.g. Figs. 21, 24 and 29, and pars. 175 – 178, 191, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) of a reconstructed Luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block);
filtering the first chroma block based on the determined direction, to generate a second chroma block (e.g. Figs. 21, 24, and 29, and pars. 175 – 178, 206, 212, and 224: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering of a reconstructed luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block, the direction of the luma block used to filter the chroma block);
determining an offset for a chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction, wherein the offset is determined based on the first luma block and the determined direction (e.g. Figs. 21, 24, and 29, and pars. 175, 191 – 194, and 224: depicting and describing that information of a first color component [Y] is used to generate an offset for filtered second color component [chroma], the filtering adapted for CDEF filters, reasonably suggesting that the determined direction of the luma component is used to determine an offset for the chroma component);
adding the offset to the second chroma block, to generate a third chroma block (e.g. Figs. 21, 24, and 29, and pars. 191 – 194, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system adds the offset to an intermediate filtered chroma block to generate a filtered chroma block) ; and
generating a decoded video frame based on the third chroma block (e.g. Figs. 5, 21, 24, and 29 and pars. 72, 175 – 178, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system reconstructs the video frame based on the filtered reconstructed chroma block).
Turning to claim 2, Du teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein generating the decoded video frame based on the third chroma block comprises:
applying a filter to the third chroma block, to generate a fourth chroma block (e.g. Figs. 24 and 29, and pars. 179 – 187, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system applies a loop restoration filter to the filtered reconstructed chroma block); and
generating the decoded video frame based on the fourth chroma block (e.g. Figs. 5, 21, 24, and 29 and pars. 72, 175 – 178, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system reconstructs the video frame based on the filtered reconstructed chroma block after filtering by the loop restoration filter).
Regarding claim 3, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the filter is a Wiener filter or a dual self- guided filter (e.g. pars. 179 – 185: describing that the loop restoration filter is a Wiener filter or a dual self-guided filter).
Turning to claim 8, Du teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein filtering the reconstructed luma block and reconstructed chroma block based on the direction comprises:
selecting a set of filter coefficients based on the direction (e.g. pars. 175 – 178: describing that the system determines filtering strengths and filtering taps based on a determined direction, wherein filtering strengths is the equivalent of filtering coefficients); and
applying the selected set of filter coefficients to the reconstructed luma block and reconstructed chroma block (e.g. pars. 175 – 178: describing that the system applies the determined filtering strengths to the reconstructed block, wherein the filtering strengths is the equivalent of the set of filter coefficients, and wherein the reconstructed block necessarily includes the reconstructed luma block and the reconstructed chroma block).
Turning to claim 9, Du teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction is a Cb sample or a Cr sample (e.g. pars. 195 – 198: depicting and describing that the chroma sample in the chroma block is a Cb sample or a Cr sample).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (WO 2022/103448) (hereinafter Du 3).
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the offset for the chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining, for chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction, a collocated luma sample in the first luma block;
determining, in the first luma block, a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample; and
applying a filter to the plurality of neighboring luma samples, to determine the offset.
Du 3, however, teaches a decoding method:
wherein determining the offset for the chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining, for chroma sample in the first chroma block along the determined direction, a collocated luma sample in the first luma block (e.g. Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system determines a collocated first component with a to-be-filtered second component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the first luma block and the second component is the equivalent of the chroma block);
determining, in the first luma block, a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample (Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system determines a plurality of neighboring samples [p0, p1, p2, and p3] of the collocated first component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma component); and
applying a filter to the plurality of neighboring luma samples, to determine the offset (e.g. Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system filters the neighboring samples of the first component to determine an offset for the second component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma samples and the second component is the equivalent of the chroma samples in the chroma block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 3 in order for determining the offset for the chroma sample to include determining a collocated luma sample, determining a plurality of neighboring luma samples to the collocated luma sample, and applying a filter to the plurality of neighboring luma samples to determine the offset. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces distortion of reconstructed samples (Du 3, e.g. par. 182: describing a desire to reduce distortion in reconstructed samples).
Turning to claim 5, Du and Du 3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples forms a cross shape.
Du 3, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples forms a cross shape (e.g. Fig. 18 and par. 183: depicting and describing that neighboring samples in the filter support area of the first component form a cross shape, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma samples).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 3 in order for the plurality of neighboring luma samples to form a cross shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces distortion of reconstructed samples (Du 3, e.g. par. 182: describing a desire to reduce distortion in reconstructed samples).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (WO 2022/103448) (hereinafter Du 3) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0303530) (hereinafter Du 2), as citied by applicant.
Regarding claim 6, Du and Du 3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein applying the filter to the plurality of neighboring luma samples comprises:
decoding a set of filter coefficients from the bitstream (du, e.g. pars. 150 – 157: describing that a set of filter coefficients for cross component filtering is transmitted in the bitstream, wherein transmitting filter coefficients in a bitstream necessarily includes decoding the filter coefficients from the bitstream); and
applying the set of filter coefficients to the plurality of neighboring luma samples, to determine the offset (Du, e.g. pars. 150 – 157: describing that the determined filter coefficients are applied to luma samples to determine an offset, wherein the luma samples include the plurality of neighboring luma samples [see discussion above]).
Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of filter coefficients being associated with the determined direction.
Du 2, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the set of filter coefficients being associated with the determined direction (e.g. pars. 19 and 30: describing that filter coefficients are associated with a determined direction of a first component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma component).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 2 in order for the set of filter coefficients to be associated with the determined direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency (Du 2, e.g. par. 19: describing a desire to consider directionality of samples in cross component filtering in order to improve coding efficiency).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (WO 2022/103448) (hereinafter Du 3) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ström et al. (WO 2021/126061) (hereinafter Ström).
Regarding claim 7, Du and Du 3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the filter is an 8-tap filter.
Ström, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the filter is an 8-tap filter ( e.g. pg. 5, 2nd full paragraph: describing that the cross component filter is an 8-tap filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Ström in order for the filter to be an 8-tap filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0303530) (hereinafter Du 2), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches a video encoding method, comprising:
encoding an input video frame (e.g. Fig. 6, element 603, and pars. 76 – 79: depicting and describing that the system encodes pictures of an input video sequence, wherein pictures of an input video sequence is the equivalent of the input video frame);
reconstructing a luma block and a chroma block based on the encoded video frame, the reconstructed luma and chroma blocks being collocated (e.g. Figs. 5 and 6, element 633, and pars. 62 – 75 and 80 – 81: depicting and describing that the system reconstructs the coded video sequence, the coded video sequence including a luma block and a collocated chroma block)
determining a direction of luma samples in the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21, 24 and 29, and pars. 175 – 178, 191, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) of a reconstructed Luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block);
determining a set of filter coefficients for a chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block (e.g. pars. 150 – 157: describing that the system determines a set of filter coefficients for a chroma sample in the reconstructed block); and
encoding the set of filter coefficients into a bitstream (e.g. par. 157: describing that filter coefficients are transmitted in the bitstream, wherein it is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order for the filter coefficients to be transmitted in the bitstream, they must necessarily be encoded into the bitstream).
Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the chroma sample in the reconstructed block is along the determined direction, wherein the set of filter coefficients is determined based on the input video frame and the reconstructed luma block.
Du 2, however, teaches a video encoding method:
wherein the chroma sample in the reconstructed block is along the determined direction, wherein the set of filter coefficients is determined based on the input video frame and the reconstructed luma block (e.g. pars. 19 and 30 - 32: describing that the system determines filter coefficients for a chroma component [Cb or Cr] based on a determined direction of input luma component [Y]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 2 in order for the chroma sample in the reconstructed block to be along the determine direction and in order for the set of filter coefficients to be determined based on the input frame and the reconstructed luma block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency (Du 2, e.g. par. 19: describing a desire to consider directionality of samples in cross component filtering in order to improve coding efficiency).
Turning to claim 15, Du and Du 2 teach all of the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction is a Cb sample or a Cr sample (e.g. pars. 195 – 198: depicting and describing that the chroma sample in the chroma block is a Cb sample or a Cr sample).
Regarding claim 16, Du teaches a method of storing a bitstream of a video, the method comprising:
reconstructing, based on an input video frame, a luma block and a chroma block, the reconstructed luma and chroma blocks being collocated (Du, e.g. Fig. 5, and pars. 62 - 64 : depicting and describing that the system reconstructs a coded video sequence by reconstructing coded video from the video sequence, the video including a luma block and a chroma block co-located with the luma block);
determining a direction of luma samples in the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21, 24 and 29, and pars. 175 – 178, 191, 206, and 212: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) of a reconstructed Luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block);
determining a set of filter coefficients for a chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block, wherein the set of filter coefficients is determined based on the input video frame and the reconstructed luma block (e.g. pars. 150 – 157: describing that a set of filter coefficients for cross component filtering is transmitted in the bitstream, wherein transmitting filter coefficients in a bitstream necessarily includes decoding the filter coefficients from the bitstream),
generating a bitstream comprising the set of filter coefficients (e.g. Fig. 6 and pars. 76 – 88: depicting and describing that the system generates a coded video sequence, the coded video sequence including the set of filter coefficients [see, e.g. par. 157: describing that the encoded video sequence includes filter coefficients], wherein the coded video sequence is the equivalent of the bitstream); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g. Fig. 6 and par. 88: depicting and describing that the coded video sequence is stored on a storage device, wherein the coded video sequence is the equivalent of the bitstream, and wherein the storage device is the equivalent of the non-transitory computer readable medium).
Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of filter coefficients are along the determine direction
Du 2, however, teaches a method of storing a bitstream:
wherein the set of filter coefficients are along the determine direction (e.g. pars. 19 and 30 - 32: describing that filter coefficients are transformed according to [rotated along] the determined direction of a first component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma component).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 2 in order for the chroma sample in the reconstructed block to be along the determine direction and in order for the set of filter coefficients to be determined based on the input frame and the reconstructed luma block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency (Du 2, e.g. par. 19: describing a desire to consider directionality of samples in cross component filtering in order to improve coding efficiency).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0303530) (hereinafter Du 2), as cited by applicant as applied to claims 10 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Du et al. (WO 2022/103448) (hereinafter Du 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Du and Du 2 teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 16, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the set of filter coefficients for the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining, for chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction, a collocated luma sample in the reconstructed luma block;
determining, in the reconstructed luma block, a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample; and
determining the set of filter coefficients based on the input video frame and the plurality of neighboring luma samples.
Du 3, however, teaches a method for encoding video data and a method for storing a bitstream:
wherein determining the set of filter coefficients for the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining, for chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction, a collocated luma sample in the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system determines a collocated first component with a to-be-filtered second component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the first luma block and the second component is the equivalent of the chroma block, the chroma sample being along a predetermined direction [see discussion above]);
determining, in the reconstructed luma block, a plurality of neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample (Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system determines a plurality of neighboring samples [p0, p1, p2, and p3] of the collocated first component, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma component); and
determining the set of filter coefficients based on the input video frame and the plurality of neighboring luma samples (e.g. Fig. 18 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system performs filtering based on the input video and the plurality of neighboring luma samples, reasonably suggesting that the filter coefficients are determined based on the input video and the plurality of neighboring luma samples).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 3 in order for determining the filter coefficients for the chroma sample to include determining a collocated luma sample, determining a plurality of neighboring luma samples to the collocated luma sample, and applying a filter to the plurality of neighboring luma samples to determine the offset. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces distortion of reconstructed samples (Du 3, e.g. par. 182: describing a desire to reduce distortion in reconstructed samples).
Turning to claims 12 and 18, Du, Du 2 and Du 3 teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 11, and claims 16 and 17, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples forms a cross shape.
Du 3, however, teaches a method for encoding video data and a method for storing a bitstream:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples forms a cross shape (e.g. Fig. 18 and par. 183: depicting and describing that neighboring samples in the filter support area of the first component form a cross shape, wherein the first component is the equivalent of the luma samples).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Du 3 in order for the plurality of neighboring luma samples to form a cross shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces distortion of reconstructed samples (Du 3, e.g. par. 182: describing a desire to reduce distortion in reconstructed samples).
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0303530) (hereinafter Du 2), as cited by applicant in view of Du et al. (WO 2022/103448) (hereinafter Du 3) as applied to claims 11 and 17, respectively, above, and further in view of Ström et al. (WO 2021/126061) (hereinafter Ström).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Du and Du 2 teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 11, and claims 16 and 17, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples comprises 8 neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample.
Ström, however, teaches a method for encoding video data and a method for storing a bitstream:
wherein the plurality of neighboring luma samples comprises 8 neighboring luma samples of the collocated luma sample (e.g. pg. 5, 1st full paragraph – pg. 6, 3rd full paragraph: describing that the system performs cross component filtering using an 8-tap filter, the 8-tap filter applied to 8 neighboring luma samples).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Ström in order for the plurality of neighboring luma samples to include 8 neighboring luma samples. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du), as cited by applicant, in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0303530) (hereinafter Du 2), as cited by applicant as applied to claims 10 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0295364) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Du and Du 2 teach all of the limitations of claims 10 and 16, respectively. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the set of filter coefficients for the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining a difference between the input video frame and the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction; and
determining the set of filter coefficients based on the difference.
Liu, however, teaches a method for encoding video data and a method for storing a bitstream:
wherein determining the set of filter coefficients for the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction comprises:
determining a difference between the input video frame and the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction (e.g. par. 68: describing that the system determines a difference between the input video and the reconstructed image, wherein the reconstructed image is the equivalent of the chroma sample in the reconstructed chroma block along the determined direction [see discussion above]); and
determining the set of filter coefficients based on the difference (e.g. par. 68: describing that the filter coefficients are determined based on the difference).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Liu in order determine the set of filter coefficients by determining a difference between the input video and the reconstructed video, and determining the set of filter coefficients based on the difference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves compression (Liu, e.g. par. 68: describing a desire to improve compression).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights