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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 5/7/2026, 3/23/2026, 1/02/2026, and 5/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(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, 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR 20130053645 A) (hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses:
A method of video encoding, comprising:
determining a temporal layer level of a current frame within a coding scheme; [See Jeong, ¶ 0078-0081 discloses determining a temporal layer level of a current frame.]
selecting an adaptive loop filtering (ALF) procedure from a plurality of ALF procedures that vary in computational complexity based on the temporal layer level of the current frame within the coding scheme, wherein [See Jeong, ¶ 0028-0030, 0088-0090 discloses selecting filter candidates, particularly with respect to adaptive loop filtering processes. Particularly, that a different number and/or shape of filter tap candidates are selected according to a type of slice and/or quantization parameter, and the size of the block for which filtering is applied.]
on a condition that the temporal layer level is the highest within the coding scheme, a first ALF procedure for the current frame is selected, [See Jeong, 0080-0084, 0085-0090 discloses selecting filter candidates, particularly with respect to adaptive loop filtering processes. Particularly, that a different number and/or shape of filter tap candidates are selected according to a type of slice and/or quantization parameter, and the size of the block for which filtering is applied. Note that in the block level control process for the most significant time layer slice, the encoder can determine whether the filtering is applied in the largest block unit.] and on a condition that the temporal layer level is the lowest within the coding scheme, a second ALF procedure for the current frame is selected; and [See Jeong, 0085-0090 discloses selecting filter candidates, particularly with respect to adaptive loop filtering processes. In the block level control process for the I slice, the encoder can determine whether the filtering is applied in the block unit of the smallest size.]
performing the selected ALF procedure on the current frame. [See Jeong, 0080-0084, 0085-0091 discloses performing adaptive loop filtering.]
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method” and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 1 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 11, One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been aware that decoding is simply the inverse operation of encoding and, in fact is often more generally referred to as "coding", encompassing both. Such a person would have been aware that in order to most accurately decode, it is typically best to use the same method on both the encoding and decoding ends.
Claim 11 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected based on the decoder of claim 11 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoding process with respect to video encoding method claim 1 as such.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 11 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 1 for corresponding motivation statement.
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.
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) 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20130053645 A) (hereinafter Jeong) in view of Chen et al. “Algorithm Description of Joint Exploration Test Model 4, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 4th Meeting: Chengdu, CN, 15-21 October 2016 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong discloses:
wherein the current frame comprises a current block, and the current block comprises a plurality of pixels, and wherein the temporal layer level of the current frame is the highest within the coding scheme and the first ALF procedure is selected, and performing the selected ALF procedure on the current frame comprises: [See Jeong, 0080-0084, 0085-0090 discloses selecting filter candidates, particularly with respect to adaptive loop filtering processes. Particularly, that a different number and/or shape of filter tap candidates are selected according to a type of slice and/or quantization parameter, and the size of the block for which filtering is applied. Note that in the block level control process for the most significant time layer slice, the encoder can determine whether the filtering is applied in the largest block unit.]
selecting a subset of pixels from the plurality of pixels in the current block; [See Jeong, ¶ 0060, 0062 discloses that for each block and/or region in a frame, an encoder may determine whether to apply an adaptive loop filter.]
Jeong does not appear to explicitly disclose:
calculating a plurality of gradients for the current block using the selected subset of pixels; and
classifying the current block for ALF based on the calculated plurality of gradients.
However, Chen discloses:
calculating a plurality of gradients for the current block using the selected subset of pixels; and [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
classifying the current block for ALF based on the calculated plurality of gradients. [See Chen, 2.5.1 “Adaptive loop filter” adaptive loop filter (ALF) with block based filter adaptation is applied, where one among 25 filters is selected for each 2x2 block based on direction and activity of local gradients; See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Jeong to add the teachings of Chen in order to adapt filter selection based on activity of local gradients.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong in view of Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Chen discloses:
wherein the subset of pixels is selected from the plurality of pixels in the current block by skipping at least one pixel in a vertical direction and at least one pixel in a horizontal direction of the plurality of pixels in the current block. [See Cheng, 2.5.3 discloses a clipping operation used to clip (skip) a sample value within a certain range. The function Clip3(min, max, T) clips a value T between the bounds min and max.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong discloses:
wherein the current frame comprises a current block, and the current block comprises a plurality of pixels, and wherein, on a condition that the temporal layer level of the current frame is higher than the lowest level and lower than the highest level within the coding scheme, a third ALF procedure for the current frame is selected, and performing the selected ALF procedure for the current frame comprises: [See Jeong, 0080-0084, 0085-0090 discloses selecting filter candidates, particularly with respect to adaptive loop filtering processes. Particularly, that a different number and/or shape of filter tap candidates are selected according to a type of slice and/or quantization parameter, and the size of the block for which filtering is applied. Note that in the block level control process for the most significant time layer slice, the encoder can determine whether the filtering is applied in the largest block unit.]
Cheng discloses:
selecting a subset of pixels from the plurality of pixels in the current block of the current frame by skipping at least one pixel in one of vertical, horizontal, or diagonal directions of the plurality of pixels in the current block; [See Cheng, 2.5.3 discloses a clipping operation used to clip (skip) a sample value within a certain range. The function Clip3(min, max, T) clips a value T between the bounds min and max.]
calculating a plurality of gradients for the current block using the selected subset of pixels; and [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
classifying the current block for ALF based on the calculated plurality of gradients. [See Chen, 2.5.1 “Adaptive loop filter” adaptive loop filter (ALF) with block based filter adaptation is applied, where one among 25 filters is selected for each 2x2 block based on direction and activity of local gradients; See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen discloses:
wherein the current frame comprises a current block, and performing the selected ALF procedure comprises:
skipping block classification for the current block if the first ALF procedure is selected, [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses determining block classification directionality D, wherein given a gradient, a directionality is selected, and classification is skipped.]
and performing the block classification for current block if the second ALF procedure is selected. [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses determining block classification directionality D, wherein given a gradient, a directionality is selected.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen discloses:
wherein the current frame comprises a current block, the current block comprises a plurality of pixels, the method further comprising:
calculating a plurality of gradients for the current block of the current frame using the plurality of pixels of the current block; [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
determining a sum of the plurality of gradients for the current block; [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses summations of gradients represented by formulas 27, 28, 29, 30.]
determining whether to disable ALF for the current block by comparing the sum of the plurality of gradients with a threshold; [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses summations of gradients represented by formulas 27, 28, 29, 30, wherein values are compared against each other and with a set of thresholds t1 and t2.]
on a condition that the sum of the plurality of gradients is less than the threshold, determining to disable ALF for the current block; and [See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses summations of gradients represented by formulas 27, 28, 29, 30, wherein values are compared against each other and with a set of thresholds t1 and t2. Particularly, it is noted that when values are both less than t1, D is set to 0, correlating with a disabling of ALF.]
reconstructing the current block with the ALF disabled. [See Chen, 2.5.1 “Adaptive loop filter” adaptive loop filter (ALF) with block based filter adaptation is applied, where one among 25 filters is selected for each 2x2 block based on direction and activity of local gradients; See Chen, 2.5.1.2 “Block classification” discloses calculating gradients of a horizontal, vertical, and two diagonal directions.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights