DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 27 OCTOBER 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements.
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 Statements (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2025 and 05/04/2026 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 § 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) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345697 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0043717 A1 (hereinafter “Deng”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a video decoding method ([0015], “a video/image decoding method performed by decoding apparatus.” FIG. 3, decoding apparatus 300 receives bitstream and outputs a reconstructed image (picture)), comprising:
receiving a bitstream associated with video content ([0084], “a bitstream including video/image information is input, the decoding apparatus 300 may reconstruct an image corresponding to a process in which the video/image information is processed in the encoding apparatus”);
decoding, from coded information of the bitstream, a first signal ([0084], “a bitstream including video/image information is input, the decoding apparatus 300 may reconstruct an image corresponding to a process in which the video/image information is processed in the encoding apparatus”);
([0213], “CC-ALF may be applied only when ALF is always operating. That is, only when ALF-enabled flag (sps_alf_enabled_flag_ is 1, the CC-ALF-enabled flag (sps_ccalf_enabled_flag) may be parsed. CC-ALF and ALF may be combined according to the table above. The CC-ALF-enabled flag may indicate whether (and may be related to) whether CC-ALF is available”),
wherein the disabling of the chroma ALF process comprises decoding one or more slice-level flags indicating that the chroma ALF is disabled, and disabling the chroma ALF process based on decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags ([0269], “the slice header information may include an ALF-enabled flag (slice_alf_enabled_flag) related to whether ALF is available. Sps_alf_enabled_flag and slice_alf_enabled_flag may be referred to as a first ALF-enabled flag and a second ALF-enabled flag, respectively.” Tables 10, 11, 14-15, and 17 each disclose variations of the slice_header(), each of which decodes the APS ID for the chroma component based on the slice_alf_enabled_flag).
Choi fails to expressly disclose determining, based on the first signal, whether an adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit is present in the bitstream; and
in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling a chroma adaptive loop filter (ALF) process.
However, Deng teaches determining, based on the first signal, whether an adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit is present in the bitstream ([0104], p. 6, right column, “no_aps_constraint_flag equal to 1 specifies that there shall be no NAL unit with nuh_unit_type equal to PREFIX_APS_NUT or SUFFIX_APS_NUT present in OlsInScope. no_aps_constraint_flag equal to 0 does not impose such a constraint.” Note, the parsing of no_aps_constraint_flag from general_constraint_info() will determine the APS NAL unit being present or not”); and
in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling a chroma adaptive loop filter (ALF) process ([0361], “when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), chroma ALF and Cross Component Adaptive Loop Filter (CC-ALF) are disallowed, but luma ALF with fixed filter may be used”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included an APS constraint, as taught by Deng ([0104]), in Choi’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi’s invention, by incorporating Deng’s invention, to improve efficiency for meeting bandwidth demands of digital video usage (Deng: [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Deng discloses wherein the decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags are equal to 0 for all of the one or more pictures in a coded layer video sequence (CLVS) associated with the video content ([0489], “ In some embodiments of method 1400, the rule further specified that a general constraint syntax element equal to 1 specifies the absence of the one or more APS NAL units that include the adaptive loop filtering data. In some embodiments of method 1400, the rule further specifies that a sequence parameter set (SPS) includes a second syntax element that indicates that the adaptive loop filtering operation is enabled for a coded layer video sequence (CLVS). In some embodiments of method 1400, the rule further specifies that a sequence parameter set (SPS) includes a second syntax element that indicates that the adaptive loop filtering operation is disabled for a coded layer video sequence (CLVS). In some embodiments of method 1400, the rule further specifies that a second syntax element in a picture header (PH) indicates that the adaptive loop filtering operation is enabled for a current video picture to which the video region belongs, and/or wherein the rule further specifies that a third syntax element in a slice header (SH) indicates that the adaptive loop filtering operation is enabled for luma and chroma color components of a current slice to which the video region belongs.” Note, [0191] describes the same slice_alf_enabled_flag as Choi, used in disabling with a value of 0 the ALF in at least the one picture associated with the slice). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Deng discloses further comprising: in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, performing a luma ALF process using a predetermined set of filters ([0361], “when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), chroma ALF and Cross Component Adaptive Loop Filter (CC-ALF) are disallowed, but luma ALF with fixed filter may be used”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 4, as outlined above. Additionally, Deng discloses wherein performing the luma ALF process using the predetermined set of filters further comprises:
decoding, from the coded information of the bitstream, a third slice-level flag ([0362], “iii. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), the values of ph_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, ph_alf_chroma_idc, slice_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, slice_alf_chroma_idc, sps_ccalf_enabled_flag are required to be equal to 0.” Note, the slice flag for ALF APS IDS identifies an APS, but because no_aps_constraint_flag is 1, there is no APS to identify with IDS, instead, the default luma ALF with fixed filters are used according to [0361]. [0366] describes a new syntax may be signaled for controlling ALF, CCALF, and LMCS when no ALF APS is signaled), and
performing the luma ALF process based on a decoded value of the third slice-level flag ([0362], “iii. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), the values of ph_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, ph_alf_chroma_idc, slice_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, slice_alf_chroma_idc, sps_ccalf_enabled_flag are required to be equal to 0.” Note, the slice flag for ALF APS IDS identifies an APS, but because no_aps_constraint_flag is 1, there is no APS to identify with IDS, instead, the default luma ALF with fixed filters are used according to [0361]. [0366] describes a new syntax may be signaled for controlling ALF, CCALF, and LMCS when no ALF APS is signaled). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 5, as outlined above. Additionally, Deng discloses wherein the decoded value of the third slice-level flag is equal to 0 for all of one or more pictures in a coded layer video sequence (CLVS) associated with the video content ([0362], “iii. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), the values of ph_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, ph_alf_chroma_idc, slice_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, slice_alf_chroma_idc, sps_ccalf_enabled_flag are required to be equal to 0.” Note, the slice flag for ALF APS IDS identifies an APS, but because no_aps_constraint_flag is 1, there is no APS to identify with IDS, instead, the default luma ALF with fixed filters are used according to [0361]). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Deng discloses wherein the first signal is a flag ([0104], p. 6, right column, “no_aps_constraint_flag”), and the method further comprises: in response to the flag having a value equal to 1, determining that the APS NAL unit is not present in the received bitstream ([0104], p. 6, right column, “no_aps_constraint_flag equal to 1 specifies that there shall be no NAL unit with nuh_unit_type equal to PREFIX_APS_NUT or SUFFIX_APS_NUT present in OlsInScope. no_aps_constraint_flag equal to 0 does not impose such a constraint.” Note, the parsing of no_aps_constraint_flag from general_constraint_info() will determine the APS NAL unit being present or not”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Examiner’s Note: Claim 15 is interpreted as a method for storing that requires the method for generating the bitstream that comprises the claimed first signal and one or more slice-level flags.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345697 A1 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0043717 A1 (hereinafter “Deng”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0368169 A1 (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 2, Choi and Deng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Choi and Deng fail to expressly disclose wherein the one or more slice-level flags comprise: a first slice-level flag corresponding to a chroma ALF process of a chroma component Cb, and a second slice-level flag corresponding to a chroma ALF process of a chroma component Cr.
However, Hu teaches wherein the one or more slice-level flags comprise: a first slice-level flag corresponding to a chroma ALF process of a chroma component Cb ([0079], “sh_alf_cb_flag equal to 0 specifies that the adaptive loop filter is not applied to the Cb colour component of the current slice. sh_alf_cb_flag equal to 1 specifies that the adaptive loop filter is applied to the Cb colour component of the current slice”), and a second slice-level flag corresponding to a chroma ALF process of a chroma component Cr ([0080], “sh_alf_cr_flag equal to 0 specifies that the adaptive loop filter is not applied to the Cr colour component of the current slice. sh_alf_cr_flag equal to 1 specifies that the adaptive loop filter is applied to the Cr colour component of the current slice”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a slice-level flag for both the Cb and Cr components, as taught by Hu ([0079-0080]), in Choi and Deng’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Choi and Deng’s invention, by incorporating Deng’s invention, to improve processing time and improve processing efficiency (Hu: [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which presents the same limitations in a forward coding process. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 16.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,825,122 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘122”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated (e.g., does not require luma ALF, CCALF, or LMCS), but additionally specifies disabling the chroma ALF. Patent ‘122 requires disabling ALF and yet applying the luma ALF, meaning only the chroma ALF is disabled, which is consistent with the instant application. Dependent claims 3-4 of Patent ‘122 include the limitation of a slice-level flag for controlling the chroma ALF. Therefore, all limitations of the instant application are present in Patent ‘122 and the claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
The following table exemplifies the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘122.
Instant Application
Patent ‘122
Claim 1: A video decoding method, comprising:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of decoding a bitstream to output one or more pictures for a video stream, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream associated with video content;
receiving a bitstream associated with content, wherein the bitstream does not comprise adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit;
decoding, from coded information of the bitstream, a first signal;
decoding, using coded information of the bitstream, one or more pictures,
wherein the decoding comprises:
determining, based on the first signal, whether an adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit is present in the bitstream; and
determining whether the APS NAL unit is present in the bitstream; and
in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling a chroma adaptive loop filter (ALF) process,
in response to the determining that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling both a cross component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) process and chroma adaptive loop filter (ALF) process; and
performing a luma ALF process based on a slice-level flag associated with a predetermined set of filters,
wherein disabling the CCALF process further comprises: decoding a first sequence-level flag indicating that the CCALF process is disabled for a video sequence associated with the sequence-level flag; and decoding a second sequence-level flag indicating that luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS) is disabled for the video sequence, wherein the decoding of the second sequence-level flag is immediately after the decoding of the first sequence-level flag
wherein the disabling of the chroma ALF process comprises decoding one or more slice-level flags indicating that the chroma ALF is disabled, and disabling the chroma ALF process based on decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags.
Claim 4: wherein the second signal [Claim 3: slice header level] indicates whether the chroma ALF process is enabled in decoding of chroma components of pictures in a coded layer video sequence (CLVS) associated with the video content.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,483,730 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘720) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0043717 A1 (hereinafter “Deng”).
The following table exemplifies the similarities between the instant application and Patent ‘720. Specifically, the instant application is narrower in the requirement of a slice-level flag for controlling the ALF.
Instant Application
Patent ‘720
Claim 1: A video decoding method, comprising:
Claim 1: A method of decoding a video bitstream to output one or more pictures, the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream associated with video content;
receiving a bitstream associated with a video sequence;
decoding, from coded information of the bitstream, a first signal;
decoding, from coded information of the bitstream, a first signal,
determining, based on the first signal, whether an adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit is present in the bitstream; and
determining, based on the first signal, whether adaptation parameter set (APS) network-abstraction-layer (NAL) unit is present in the bitstream; and
in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling a chroma adaptive loop filter (ALF) process,
in response to a determination that the APS NAL unit is not present in the bitstream, disabling a cross component adaptive loop filter (CCALF) process,
wherein disabling the CCALF process further comprises: decoding a first sequence-level flag indicating that the CCALF process is disabled for the video sequence associated with the first sequence-level flag; and decoding, consecutively after the decoding of the first sequence-level flag, a second sequence-level flag indicating that luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS) is disabled for the video sequence
wherein the disabling of the chroma ALF process comprises decoding one or more slice-level flags indicating that the chroma ALF is disabled, and disabling the chroma ALF process based on decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags.
Regarding claim 1, Patent ‘720 discloses every limitation of the instant application, except for: wherein the disabling of the chroma ALF process comprises decoding one or more slice-level flags indicating that the chroma ALF is disabled, and disabling the chroma ALF process based on decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags.
However, Deng teaches wherein the disabling of the chroma ALF process comprises decoding one or more slice-level flags indicating that the chroma ALF is disabled, and disabling the chroma ALF process based on decoded values of the one or more slice-level flags ([0360], “i. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), ph_alf_enabled_flag, and/or slice_alf_enabled_flag is allowed to be equal to 0 or 1.” [0361], “ ii. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), chroma ALF and Cross Component Adaptive Loop Filter (CC-ALF) are disallowed, but luma ALF with fixed filter may be used.” [0362], “iii. For example, when there is no ALF APS (e.g., no_aps_constraint_flag is equal to 1), the values of ph_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, ph_alf_chroma_idc, slice_num_alf_aps_ids_luma, slice_alf_chroma_idc, sps_ccalf_enabled_flag are required to be equal to 0.” Note, the processing of said slice-level flags will actively disable the chroma ALF).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included slice-level flags for controlling the ALF, as taught by Deng ([0360-0362]), in Patent ‘720. One would have been motivated to modify Patent ‘720, by incorporating Deng’s invention, to improve efficiency for meeting bandwidth demands of digital video usage (Deng: [0003]).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the same rationale of claim 1 equally applies. Similarly, each of the dependent claims stand rejected under the instant application and Patent ‘720.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0408085 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”) – Discloses using a fixed filter flag for indicating fixed luma ALF. See Lim, [0625].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
