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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in fig. 5, S540, there appears to be a typo, “BAAED” should be “BASED”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to note that the steps of claim 17 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The computer-readable storage medium merely serves as a support for the information or data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has still included citations below. The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a computer or processor to execute the method steps.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,697. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application’s claims are anticipated by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 1-17 of the current application is anticipated by claims 1-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,697.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,697 in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0067793), hereinafter Hu.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream is an additional limitation.
However, Hu teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Hu [0025] and [0028], further, see Claim Interpretation section above).
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 method of the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Hu to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Hu [0003]).
Claims 1, 9 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,349 or claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1, 9 and 18 of the current application claims are anticipated by claims 1-3 of the U.S. Patents.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,349 or claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 401,830 in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0067793), hereinafter Hu.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream is an additional limitation.
However, Hu teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Hu [0025] and [0028], further, see Claim Interpretation section above).
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 method of the U.S. Patent with the missing limitations as taught by Hu to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Hu [0003]).
Claim 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,349 or claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,830 in view of Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0067793), hereinafter Hu and Zhang et al. (U.S. 2018/0288441), hereinafter Zhang or Hu, Zhang and Misra et al. (“Cross-Component Adaptive Loop Filter for chroma”, JVET-O0636, 3-12 July 2019), hereinafter Misra as cited below.
For the remaining claim limitations, see citations and motivations below with the missing limitations of Hu based on the motivation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed towards a “computer-readable storage medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The office has determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer readable medium includes both transitory and non-transitory mediums (See MPEP 2106(II) or 2106.03(II)). Since the specification does not explicitly define the claimed computer-readable digital storage medium as a non-transitory medium, claim 17 includes at least one embodiment where the claimed bitstream is stored on a transitory medium. As a result, claim 17 is not directed towards any of the statutory categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0067793), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 17, Hu discloses a computer-readable storage medium wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a bitstream (Hu [0025]-[0026] and [0028]) generated by an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising: generating prediction samples for a current block; generating prediction-related information based on the prediction samples; generating residual samples for the current block; deriving transform coefficients based on a transform process for the residual samples; generating residual information based on the transform coefficients; generating reconstructed samples based on the residual samples and the prediction samples; generating adaptive loop filter (ALF)-related information and cross-component ALF (CCALF)-related information for the reconstructed samples; and encoding image information including the residual information, the prediction-related information, the ALF-related information, and the CCALF-related information to generate the bitstream, wherein the cross-component ALF-related information includes information on a number of cross-component filters for a cross-component filtering process and information on cross-component filter coefficients.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (U.S. 2021/0067793), hereinafter Hu in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2018/0288441), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, comprising:
obtaining image information including prediction-related information ([0109]) and residual information through a bitstream ([0060]);
deriving transform coefficients based on the residual information ([0136]);
generating residual samples based on the transform coefficients ([0136]);
generating prediction samples based on the prediction-related information ([0136]);
generating reconstructed samples based on the prediction samples and the residual samples ([0136]), the reconstructed samples including reconstructed luma samples and reconstructed chroma samples ([0005]);
deriving adaptive loop filter (ALF) filter coefficients for an ALF process of the reconstructed chroma samples ([0119]-[0120] and fig. 3);
generating filtered reconstructed chroma samples based on the reconstructed chroma samples and the ALF filter coefficients ([0119]-[0120] and fig. 3);
deriving cross-component filter coefficients for cross-component filtering ([0133] and [0129]); and
generating modified filtered reconstructed chroma samples based on the reconstructed luma samples, the filtered reconstructed chroma samples, and the cross-component filter coefficients ([0120]),
wherein the image information includes information on cross-component filtering ([0132]),
wherein the indices of cross-component filters for the cross-component filtering is derived based on the information on the cross-component filtering ([0132]), and
wherein the cross-component filter coefficients for the cross-component filtering are derived based on the number of cross-component filters for the cross-component filtering ([0133] and [0129]).
Hu discloses signaling a number of indices which indicate the number of filters being used. Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of cross-component filters for the cross-component filtering is derived based on the information on the cross-component filtering.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the image information includes information on cross-component filtering (Zhang [0070] and [0053]), wherein the number of cross-component filters for the cross-component filtering is derived based on the information on the cross-component filtering (Zhang [0070]), and wherein the cross-component filter coefficients for a cross-component filtering are derived based on the number of cross-component filters for the cross-component filtering (Zhang [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Zhang to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently by implementing video compression techniques (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding and image encoding method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the image information includes a sequence parameter set (SPS) (Hu [0058]),
the SPS (Hu [0058]) includes a cross-component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) enable flag related to whether the cross-component filtering is enabled (Hu [0126]), and wherein ID information of adaptation parameter sets (APSs) (Hu [0127]) including ALF data used for deriving the cross-component filter coefficients is derived (Hu [0119] and fig. 3) based on the CCALF enable flag (Hu [0126]).
Claim 10 recites analogous limitations to claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 10 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Hu discloses an image encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus, comprising:
generating prediction samples for a current block ([0131]);
generating prediction-related information based on the prediction samples ([0136], [0049], [0040]);
generating residual samples for the current block ([0131]);
deriving transform coefficients based on a transform process for the residual samples ([0131] and [0061]);
generating residual information based on the transform coefficients ([0131] and [0061]);
generating reconstructed samples based on the residual samples and the prediction samples ([0132]);
generating adaptive loop filter (ALF)-related information ([0119]-[0120] and fig. 4) and cross-component ALF (CCALF)-related information for the reconstructed samples ([0133]); and
encoding image information ([0034] and [0003]) including the residual information, the prediction-related information, the ALF-related information ([0119]-[0120] and fig. 4), and the CCALF-related information ([0133]),
wherein the cross-component ALF-related information includes information on the indices of cross-component filters for a cross-component filtering process ([0132]) and information on cross-component filter coefficients ([0133] and [0129]).
Hu discloses signaling a number of indices which indicate the number of filters being used. Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the cross-component ALF-related information includes information on the number of cross-component filters for a cross-component filtering process.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the cross-component ALF-related information (Zhang [0070] and [0053]) includes information on the number of cross-component filters for a cross-component filtering process (Zhang [0070]) and information on cross-component filter coefficients (Zhang [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Zhang to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently by implementing video compression techniques (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Hu in view of Zhang teaches a transmission method of data for an image, the method comprising: obtaining a bitstream for the image (Hu [0060] and fig. 3), wherein the bitstream is generated (Hu fig. 2) based on: generating prediction samples for a current block, generating prediction-related information based on the prediction samples, generating residual samples for the current block, deriving transform coefficients based on a transform process for the residual samples, generating residual information based on the transform coefficients, generating reconstructed samples based on the residual samples and the prediction samples, generating adaptive loop filter (ALF)-related information and cross-component ALF (CCALF)-related information for the reconstructed samples, and encoding image information including the residual information, the prediction-related information, the ALF-related information, and the CCALF-related information; and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (Hu figs. 1-2), wherein the cross-component ALF-related information includes information on a number of cross-component filters for a cross-component filtering process and information on cross- component filter coefficients (see claim 9 for remaining limitations).
Claims 3-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misra et al. (“Cross-Component Adaptive Loop Filter for chroma”, JVET-O0636, 3-12 July 2019), hereinafter Misra.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the image information includes slice header information (Hu [0127]).
Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the slice header information includes a first flag related to whether the CCALF is enabled for a Cb color component of filtered reconstructed chroma samples, and a second flag related to whether the CCALF is enabled for a Cr color component of the filtered reconstructed chroma samples.
However, Misra teaches wherein the slice header information includes a first flag related to whether the CCALF is enabled for a Cb color component of filtered reconstructed chroma samples, and a second flag related to whether the CCALF is enabled for a Cr color component of the filtered reconstructed chroma samples (Misra pgs. 4-5, syntax block).
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 method taught by Hu in view of Zhang with the missing limitations as taught by Misra to achieve BD rate improvement for improved video compression (Misra p. 1, Abstract).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim 11 recites analogous limitations to claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 11 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 3 and 11, wherein the image information includes adaptation parameter sets (APSs) (Hu [0127]),
wherein based on a determination that a value of the first flag is 1, the slice header information includes ID information of a first APS including first ALF data used for the derivation of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component (Misra p. 6, syntax block), and
wherein based on a determination that a value of the second flag is 1, the slice header information includes ID information of a second APS including second ALF data used for the derivation of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component (Misra p. 6, syntax block).
The same analysis and motivation applies for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations for which Misra was cited in claims 4 and 12.
Claim 12 recites analogous limitations to claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 12 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 4 and 12, wherein the first ALF data includes a Cb filter signal flag related to whether the cross-component filters for the Cb color component are signaled (Misra p. 6, syntax block),
wherein based on the Cb filter signal flag, the first ALF data includes information related to the number of cross-component filters for the Cb color component (Misra p. 6, syntax block),
wherein based on the information related to the number of cross-component filters for the Cb color component, the first ALF data includes information on absolute values of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component and information on signs of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component (Misra p. 6, syntax block), and
wherein based on the information on the absolute values of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component and the information on the signs of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component, the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cb color component are derived (Misra p. 7, accompanying description).
The same analysis and motivation applies for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations for which Misra was cited in claims 5 and 13.
Claim 13 recites analogous limitations to claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 13 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 4 and 12,
wherein the second ALF data includes a Cr filter signal flag related to whether the cross-component filters for the Cr color component are signaled (Misra pgs. 6-7, syntax block),
wherein based on the Cr filter signal flag, the second ALF data includes information related to the number of cross-component filters for the Cr color component (Misra pgs. 6-7, syntax block),
wherein based on the information related to the number of cross-component filters for the Cr color component, the second ALF data includes information on absolute values of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component and information on signs of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component (Misra pgs. 6-7, syntax block),
wherein based on the information on the absolute values of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component and the information on the signs of the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component, the cross-component filter coefficients for the Cr color component are derived (Misra pgs. 6-7, syntax block and accompanying description).
The same analysis and motivation applies for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations for which Misra was cited in claims 6 and 14.
Claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 14 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 1 and 9,
wherein the image information includes information on a coding tree unit (Hu [0132] and [0004]), and
wherein the information on the coding tree unit includes (Hu [0132] and [0004]): information on whether a cross-component filter is applied to a current block (Hu [0132]) of a Cb color component (Hu [0038] and Misra p. 6); and
information on whether a cross-component filter is applied to a current block of a Cr color component (Hu [0038] and Misra p. 6).
The same analysis and motivation applies for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations for which Misra was cited in claims 7 and 15.
Claim 15 recites analogous limitations to claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 15 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Hu in view of Zhang teaches the image decoding method and image encoding method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the image information includes information on a coding tree unit (Hu [0132] and [0004]), and
wherein the information on the coding tree unit includes (Hu [0132] and [0004]):
information on a filter set index of a cross-component filter that is applied to a current block of a Cb color component (Hu [0038] and Misra p. 6); and
information on a filter set index of a cross-component filter that is applied to a current block of a Cr color component (Hu [0038] and Misra p. 6).
The same analysis and motivation applies for claim 3 applies to the missing limitations for which Misra was cited in claims 8 and 16.
Claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 16 discloses an inverse of decoding and Hu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Hu figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (U.S. 2018/0041779) further discloses a syntax element for a total number of filters and a filter index ([0151] and [0203]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights