DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following is a list of prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including prior arts not relied upon in the rejection
US 20250106394 A1 (Yin)
US 20210266598 A1 (Hashimoto)
US 20250039371 A1 (Kim)
US 20240223756 A1 (Zhang)
US 20250324049 A1 (Para 230 “ALF filter may be constructed by one or more sub-filters from the following”, “a sub-filter calculated based on temporal samples in a reference picture”, “a sub-filter calculated based on spatial neighboring residual samples”, Para 356)
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yin.
Regarding claim 1. Yin teaches a video decoding method, comprising: generating from a bitstream a reconstructed block of a current block: and performing filtering by inputting the reconstructed block into an adaptive loop filter (ALF) [(Para 131; ALF filter is last processing stage of decoding, therefore reconstructed or decoded signal is feed to it for minimizing error; Also see para 253 and Fig. 2)],
wherein the performing of the filtering comprises: determining one or more reference pictures that have been reconstructed prior to a current picture including the current block [(para 231-232 ALF uses previously coded frame/reference frame; para 209; extended taps used samples inside2 reference pictures; para 235 reference picture is reconstructed picture )],
, determining one or more reference samples in the one or more reference pictures[(para 209; extended taps used samples inside2 reference pictures; para 314-316, 179; extended tap of ALF filter {Abstract} )],
and performing the filtering by using the one or more reference samples [(para 231-232, 209)]
Yin additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 3. The video decoding method of claim 1 wherein the determining the one or more reference pictures comprises: determining the one or more reference pictures based on at least one of a temporal layer, a temporal distance from the current picture [(para 233, POC is temporal distance )], a decoded picture buffer (DPB), a co- located reference picture, or an index of a reference picture list. [(para 234, 235 )]
Yin additionally teaches, w.r.t. claim 4. The video decoding method of claim 1 wherein the determining the one or more reference samples comprises: determining the one or more reference samples based on at least one of a block determined based on the current block, in the one or more reference pictures, a block determined by using a motion vector, in the one or more reference pictures, or a block determined by using a motion vector by an affine transform, in the one or more reference pictures. [(para 235, 446 )]
Regarding Claims 7, 9-10, 13: See analysis of claims 1, 3-4 and Yin Fig. 58 and 55
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Hashimoto.
Regarding Claims 2, 8. Yin teaches an operation of the filtering is performed using a difference value based on the one or more reference samples
Yin does not explicitly show an operation of the filtering is performed using a difference value based on the one or more reference samples
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Hashimoto teaches an operation of the filtering is performed using a difference value based on the one or more reference samples [(Hashimoto para 164 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities, both the prior arts are teaching various steps of ALF, while Yin is silent about the details after sample selection, Hashimoto fill the gap.
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Kim.
Regarding Claims 5, 11. Yin teaches determining the one or more reference samples from the one or more reference based on motion information/vector [(para 231, 234-235 )]
Yin does not explicitly show using an optical flow map, wherein the optical flow map is determined based on at least one of a deep learning algorithm, a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), or a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF).
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Kim teaches for improved motion vector/information using an optical flow map, wherein the optical flow map is determined based on at least one of a deep learning algorithm, a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), or a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF). [(Kim para 125-126, 147)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to improve accuracy and quality, Yin uses motion vector/information, Kim uses these to improve motion information/vector accuracy.
Claims 6,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claims 6, 12. Yin teaches determining the one or more reference samples from the one or more reference based on motion information/vector [(para 231, 234-235 )]
Yin does not explicitly show using a motion vector in an intra block copy(IBC).
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Zhang teaches using a motion vector in an intra block copy(IBC) for more accurate motion vector/information[(Zhang 1381)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to improve accuracy and quality, Yin uses motion vector/information, Zhang uses these to improve motion information/vector accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights