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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the communication filed July 24, 2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended. No new matter was added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed June 16, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 18-20 were 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.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., US 20230034367 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 13 to recite "wherein the corrected decision factor being less than the decision factor before correction increases a possibility of using the new APS."
Applicant argues Zhang's decision process simply responds to QP value and does not attempt to determine "a corrected decision factor" such that "the corrected decision factor is less than the decision factor before correction" which "increases a possibility of using the new APS." (Applicant Remarks, Filed July 24, 2026, pg. 7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to Applicant’s specification, “[t]he decision factor before correction in this embodiment refers to the decision factor obtained according to parameters such as the QP in the configuration.” (PG PUB 2025/0350722 A1, ¶ [0125]). Applicant’s specification further indicates “the decision factor obtained according to parameters such as the QP in the configuration to determine whether to use the new APS of the current filtering mode.” Id. ¶ [0195].
Zhang, method 720 of figure 8, discloses steps for determining whether to increase the number of derived ALF sets to include the selection of the luma ALF sets (Zhang, ¶ [0080]). The decision is made according to a quantization parameter (QP). In step 835, the QP is compared against a first QP threshold. If the condition is not met (i.e., if the QP is greater than the first QP threshold), another step 845 is executed. At step 845 the QP is compared to a second QP threshold less than the first QP threshold. In this decision step, if the QP is less than the second QP threshold the new luma ALF set is added to the derived ALF sets. Id. ¶ ¶ [0080]- [0081], Fig. 8. Thus corrected or less than before.
Based in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, Zhang discloses a corrected decision factor and the corrected decision factor is less than the decision factor before correction, based on yes or no decisions made according to factors including whether the QP is lower or high than a first QP threshold and second QP threshold that is lower than the first QP threshold. Id. ¶ ¶ [0080]- [0081], Fig. 8.
Zhang further discloses “increasing a possibility of using the new APS” based on the corrected decision factor being less than the decision factor before correction, because Zhang’s disclosure of encoding an ALF filter set into an APS to be signaled to a video decoder (Id. ¶ [0031]) inherently increases the probability of using the included APS for video encoding and/or decoding.
Zhang discloses performing ALF set selection for encoding wherein, “parameters of the derived ALF filter are encoded in an adaptation parameter set (APS) and can be used for adaptive loop filtering of the current frame and subsequent frames.” Id. ¶ [0022]. Referring back to figure 8, Zhang discloses adding a new luma ALF filter to a derived ALF set such that the new ALF set would be among derived ALF sets for encoding in an adaptation parameter set (APS). See step 850. That said, adding the luma ALF sets to the derived ALS sets to be among possible ALF set options for coding increases the possibility of using the new APS, as recited in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang.
Applicant has amended independent claim 17 to recite claimed method is performed by a video decoder.
Applicant argues that “[a]lthough Zhang generally describes a video decoder…there is no description in Zhang of how filter parameter processing will be performed by a video decoder.” (Applicant Remarks, Filed July 24, 2026, pg. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang teaches the methods implemented by the encoder may also be performed at decoder (i.e., in inverse). Zhang discloses a “video decoder that implements adaptive loop filter classification and selection in accordance with teachings of this disclosure,” and “adaptive loop filter structures employed by the example video encoder and the example video decoder of FIG. 1.” Zhang ¶ [0003]. Zhang further discloses “a video decoder that is to perform adaptive loop filtering of luma components of a decoded picture corresponding to the input picture.” ¶ [0129].
For at least the above-mentioned reasons, Applicants arguments found not persuasive.
The remining dependent claims are not allowable at least due to their dependency on the unpatentable independent claims and respective rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., US 20230034367 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses a filtering parameter processing method (Zhang: abstract), comprising:
determining a new adaptation parameter set (APS) of a current filtering mode of a target filtering unit (Zhang: Fig. 4, 435 Chroma ALF Set Decision, 455 CTB Set ALF Decision, 450 CC-ALF Set Decision: Fig. 8 step 810 ALF activation and set selection circuitry 410 selects a number (e.g., 1 or some other number) of the most recently derives luma ALF filter sets in the collection of available luma ALF filter sets to include in the selection of luma ALF filters for the current input picture ¶[0079])
determining a corrected decision factor after the current filtering mode is determined to satisfy a decision factor correction condition, wherein the corrected decision factor is less than a decision factor before correction (Zhang: Fig. 8 step 845 ALF Set selection based on quantization parameter), and wherein the corrected decision factor being less than the decision factor before correction increases a possibility of using the new APS (Zhang: Yes or no decisions are made according to whether the QP is lower or high than a first QP threshold and second QP threshold that is lower than the first QP threshold. In step 835, the QP is compared against a first QP threshold. If the condition is not met, another step 845 is executed. At step 845 the QP is compared to a second QP threshold less than the first QP threshold. Id. ¶ ¶ [0080]- [0081], Fig. 8. Zhang discloses adding a new luma ALF filter to a derived ALF set such that the new ALF set would be among derived ALF sets for encoding in an adaptation parameter set (APS). See step 850. Adding the luma ALF sets to the derived ALS sets increases the possibility of using the new APS. ¶ [0022].); and
determining, according to the corrected decision factor, whether to use the new APS of the current filtering mode (Zhang: Fig. 8 step 850) wherein the current filtering mode is at least one of luma adaptive loop filter (ALF), chroma ALF, cross-component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) Cb, or CCALF Cr (Zhang: Filtering modes, ALF luma, ALF chroma, CC ALF cb, CC ALF cr [Fig. 7a, 8A]).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the current filtering mode satisfies the decision factor correction condition (Zhang: adjusting the selection of luma ALF filter sets for the current picture based on the quantization parameter (QP) ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the current filtering mode satisfies the decision factor correction condition comprises at least one of the following: a number of available historical candidate sets for the current filtering mode is less than a preset threshold; or using a new APS of a preceding filtering mode. (Zhang: determines whether the collection of available luma, chroma, and cross-channel ALF filter sets is empty [Fig. 7, 70, 730 and 750, ¶ [0076]] and using available chroma, luma or cross-channel sets if the respective collections are empty [Fig. 7, 725, 745, 760], and previously derived luma ALF filters sets and a newly derived luma ALF filter set can be selected for the current input picture ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 3, wherein preset thresholds corresponding to different filtering modes are same, or preset thresholds corresponding to different filtering modes are different (Zhang discloses using available chroma, luma or cross-channel sets if the respective collections are empty [Fig. 7, 725, 745, 760]), or preset thresholds corresponding to different filtering modes are different.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the corrected decision factor comprises: determining a product of a preset weight and the decision factor before correction as the corrected decision factor, wherein the preset weight is a number less than 1 and greater than zero (Zhang: Quantization parameter Fig. 8, ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 5, wherein preset weights corresponding to different filtering modes are same, or preset weights corresponding to different filtering modes are different (Zhang: ¶ Luma QP threshold [0051]; Chroma QP threshold ¶ [0053]).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, after the current filtering mode is determined not to satisfy the decision factor correction condition, whether to use the new APS of the current filtering mode according to the decision factor before correction (Zhang: Fig. 8 step 815, 835, 840)
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after determining, according to the corrected decision factor, that the new APS of the current filtering mode needs to be used, updating target historical filtering parameters corresponding to the target filtering unit among historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the new APS of the current filtering mode (Zhang: if the ALF derivation circuitry 115 derives at least one new ALF filter set for the current picture, the ALF derivation circuitry 115 adds the new filter set to the APS buffer ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: in a case where the target historical filtering parameters are not empty, updating empty historical filtering parameters among the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the target historical filtering parameters (Zhang: Fig. 8 steps 850 he ALF activation and set selection circuitry 410 increases the number of the most recently derived luma ALF filter sets to include in the selection of luma ALF filters ¶[0081]).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after determining, according to the corrected decision factor, that the new APS of the current filtering mode needs to be used, transmitting the new APS of the current filtering mode in a bitstream (Zhang: the ALF encoding circuitry 130 encodes the selected ALF filter sets into an APS to be signaled to the example video decoder 110 ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target filtering unit comprises at least one of the following: a slice, a tile, a coding tree unit (CTU), or a sub-picture Zhang: coding tree unit (CTU) ¶ [0038])
Regarding claim 13 (Currently amended), Zhang discloses a filtering parameter processing method (Zhang: Abstract), comprising:
determining a new adaptation parameter set (APS) of a current filtering mode of a target filtering unit (Zhang: Fig. 4, 435 Chroma ALF Set Decision, 455 CTB Set ALF Decision, 450 CC-ALF Set Decision: Fig. 8 step 810 ALF activation and set selection circuitry 410 selects a number (e.g., 1 or some other number) of the most recently derives luma ALF filter sets in the collection of available luma ALF filter sets to include in the selection of luma ALF filters for the current input picture ¶[0079]);
determining, based on a corrected decision factor that is less than a decision factor before correction, to use the new APS, wherein the corrected decision factor being less than the decision factor before correction increases a possibility of using a new APS (Zhang: Yes or no decisions are made according to whether the QP is lower or high than a first QP threshold and second QP threshold that is lower than the first QP threshold. In step 835, the QP is compared against a first QP threshold. If the condition is not met, another step 845 is executed. At step 845 the QP is compared to a second QP threshold less than the first QP threshold. Id. ¶ ¶ [0080]- [0081], Fig. 8. Zhang discloses adding a new luma ALF filter to a derived ALF set such that the new ALF set would be among derived ALF sets for encoding in an adaptation parameter set (APS). See step 850. Adding the luma ALF sets to the derived ALS sets increases the possibility of using the new APS. ¶ [0022].);
in response to determining that the new APS of the current filtering mode is used updating target historical filtering parameters corresponding to the target filtering unit among historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the new APS of the current filtering mode (Zhang discloses adding a new Luma ALF set selection to a recently derived ALF sets, Fig. 8, 840 and 850); and in a case where the target historical filtering parameters are not empty, updating empty historical filtering parameters among the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the target historical filtering parameters (Zhang discloses adding a new Luma ALF set selection to a recently derived ALF sets, Fig. 8, 840 and 850).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 13, wherein updating the empty historical filtering parameters among the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the target historical filtering parameters comprises: determining, according to a preset rule, the empty historical filtering parameters among the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode; and updating the empty historical filtering parameters among the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode to the target historical filtering parameters (Zhang discloses adding a new Luma ALF set selection to a recently derived ALF sets, Fig. 8, 840 and 850).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Zhang disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the preset rule comprises at least one of the following: traversing the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode in order of generation time from new to old; or traversing the historical filtering parameters of the current filtering mode in order of generation time from old to new (Zhang: selection of the particular filters to include in the chroma ALF and/or the cross-channel CCALF ALF filter set is based on the order in which the available chroma ALF filters and/or the cross-channel CCALF ALF filters were derived ¶ [0026])
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: in response to determining that the current filtering mode satisfies a decision factor correction condition, determining a corrected decision factor, wherein the corrected decision factor is less than a decision factor before correction; and determining, according to the corrected decision factor, whether to use the new APS of the current filtering mode (Zhang: Fig. 4, 435 Chroma ALF Set Decision, 455 CTB Set ALF Decision, 450 CC-ALF Set Decision: Fig. 8 step 810 ALF activation and set selection circuitry 410 selects a number (e.g., 1 or some other number) of the most recently derives luma ALF filter sets in the collection of available luma ALF filter sets to include in the selection of luma ALF filters for the current input picture ¶[0079])
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 17. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13 (Zhang teaches that the methods implemented by the encoder may also be performed at decoder (i.e., in inverse). Zhang discloses a “video decoder that implement adaptive loop filter classification and selection in accordance with teachings of this disclosure,” and “adaptive loop filter structures employed by the example video encoder and the example video decoder of FIG. 1.” Zhang ¶ [0003]. Zhang further discloses “a video d decoder that is to perform adaptive loop filtering of luma components of a decoded picture corresponding to the input picture.” ¶ [0129]).
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising at least one processor, wherein when executing a computer program, the at least one processor cause the electronic device to perform the method of claim 1 (Zhang: Figs. 13-15).
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising at least one processor, wherein when executing a computer program, the at least one processor cause the electronic device to perform the method of claim 13 (Zhang: Figs. 13-15).
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising at least one processor, wherein when executing a computer program, the at least one processor cause the electronic device to perform the method of claim 17 (Zhang: Figs. 13-15).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in further view of Xu et al., Pat. Pub. US 20100008417 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein a decision factor comprises a Lagrangian factor.
However, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a decision factor comprises a Lagrangian factor (RD cost calculator 114 may determine the RD cost for every parameter permutation applied by adaptive Wiener filter 112 and may select the parameters that result in the lowest RD cost. For each parameter permutation, RD cost calculator 114 may determine the RD cost for each permutation from equation based on a Lagrangian factor for pass decision ¶¶ [0027]- [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zhang with wherein a decision factor comprises a Lagrangian factor, as taught by Xu. The modification allows one to “select the [ALF] parameters that result in the lowest RD cost” (Xu, ¶ [0027]- [0030]). The benefit being that the modification would reduce computational cost during encoding and decoding.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights