DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 1 OCTOBER 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements filed.
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 (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶¶ [0216] and [0218] state, “bilatering filtering for luma” and should read --bilateral filtering for luma--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 100, 104, 107, 111, 113-118 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 104, 111, and 118 state, “bilatering filtering for luma” and should read --bilateral filtering for luma--
Claim 113 recites a computer-readable medium (CRM) storing program instructions without any executable means (e.g., processor) for establishing a relationship between the CRM with the stored program instructions and the intended computer system. See MPEP § 2115(III).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 113-118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards a computer-readable medium that encompasses transitory signals. Applicant’s specification defines a computer-readable medium as, “[t]he computer readable one or more memories 725 may be non-transitory, transitory, volatile (e.g. random access memory (RAM)) or non-volatile (e.g. read-only memory (ROM)).” See ¶ [00194]. A transitory signal does not constitute a statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03(I), “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: […] Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.” Therefore, the claim is found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, failing Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. See MPEP § 2106.03(II).
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)(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) 99-118 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2025/0234047 A1 (hereinafter “Galpin”).
Regarding claim 99, Galpin discloses an apparatus (¶ [0087], “an apparatus”) comprising:
at least one processor (¶ [0101], “at least one processor”); and
at least one memory (¶ [0101], “Processor 410 can include embedded memory”) storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor (¶ [0104], “memory inside of the processor 410 and/or the encoder/decoder module 430 is used to store instructions and to provide working memory for processing that is needed during encoding or decoding”), cause the apparatus to perform:
determining, for at least a portion of a picture, a plurality of virtual boundaries, wherein the plurality of virtual boundaries comprise at least a first virtual boundary and a second virtual boundary (¶ [0183], “The virtual boundaries may apply to vertical virtual boundaries or horizontal virtual boundaries. In examples, the identification of the areas given the virtual boundaries may be generalized to the case where it exists for both vertical and horizontal boundaries.” The table at ¶ [0183] includes syntax for both horizontal and vertical virtual boundaries);
determining at least one of:
a first condition when both sides of a first segment at the first virtual boundary are in refreshed areas, or when both sides of the first segment are in non-refreshed areas (¶ [0004], “a video decoder may determine that a loop filtering mode is enabled for a picture. The picture may include a number of regions. Based on the determination that the loop filtering mode is enabled, for a block (e.g., a current block) in a region within the number of regions, whether neighboring samples are available for loop filtering associated with the current block may be determined based on a location of the neighboring samples relative to the region.” ¶ [0005] similarly describes the subject matter for a video encoder. Note, a region for in-loop filtering not including a boundary would be standard in-loop filtering, where contamination across a virtual boundary is not possible because the samples are all on one side of the boundary (i.e., both sides of the first segment are on either side of the virtual boundary). FIG. 2 depicts In-loop Filters 265 in video encoder 200 and FIG. 3 depicts In-loop Filters 365 in video decoder 300), or
a second condition when one side of the first segment at the first virtual boundary is in a refreshed area and another side of the first segment is in a non-refreshed area (¶ [0161], “Loop-filtering may be disabled or constrained at least one GDR band boundary because it may mix signals from the clean and dirty areas.” ¶ [0164], “If GDR is enabled, at the at least one GDR boundary, the filtering in the clean area (e.g., only the filtering in the clean area) may be disabled since it may use samples in the dirty area. The filtering in the dirty area may still be used to limit visual artifacts. To allow for filtering in the dirty area while preventing filtering in the clean area, half boundary filtering may be signaled”); and
based upon the determining of the first condition, performing a first type of filtering of at least one pixel proximate the first segment (¶ [0192], “The in-loop filtering operations may include the deblocking filter, sample adaptive offset filter, and adaptive loop filter operations.” Note, special conditions are reserved for when the current block is split by the virtual boundary, which is the second condition); and
based upon the determining of the second condition, performing a second type of filtering of at least one pixel proximate a second segment (¶ [0192], “The in-loop filtering operations may include the deblocking filter, sample adaptive offset filter, and adaptive loop filter operations.” Note, the current block is split by the virtual boundary and the pixels are of the current block), wherein the second type of filtering is different from the first type of filtering (¶ [0205], “As the transition from the clean area to the dirty area may introduce stronger visual artifacts and half of the at least one boundary (e.g., the right part of at least one virtual boundary) may allowed to be filtered, a stronger loop filter at the least one boundary may be introduced.” ¶ [0164], “To allow for filtering in the dirty area while preventing filtering in the clean area, half boundary filtering may be signaled. Half boundary filtering may allow filtering at the boundary location for samples in the dirty area (e.g., only in the dirty area)”).
Regarding claim 100, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein performing the second different type of filtering comprises one of the following:
skipping in-loop filtering for at least one pixel in the refreshed area when filtering of the at least one pixel requires use of coding information of the non-refreshed area (¶ [0164], “If GDR is enabled, at the at least one GDR boundary, the filtering in the clean area (e.g., only the filtering in the clean area) may be disabled since it may use samples in the dirty area. The filtering in the dirty area may still be used to limit visual artifacts. To allow for filtering in the dirty area while preventing filtering in the clean area, half boundary filtering may be signaled”);
when filtering of the at least one pixel requires use of the coding information of the non-refreshed area, performing in-loop filtering for the at least one pixel in the refreshed area comprising one of: the coding information of the non-refreshed area derived from the refreshed area, or set to at least one pre-determined value (¶ [0013], “the precluded first neighboring sample maybe replaced by a padded sample as an input to the filter, and a second neighboring sample that is at a filter position that is symmetrical to the first neighboring sample is also replaced by a padded sample as an input to the filter”).
Regarding claim 101, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein the first type of filtering comprises in-loop filtering (¶ [0004], “a video decoder may determine that a loop filtering mode is enabled for a picture. FIG. 2 depicts In-loop Filters 265 in video encoder 200 and FIG. 3 depicts In-loop Filters 365 in video decoder 300. Note, all filtering types fall within the definition of in-loop filtering, as they are neither pre-filters nor post-filters).
Regarding claim 102, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein the second different type of filtering comprises asymmetric in-loop filtering (¶ [0164], “To allow for filtering in the dirty area while preventing filtering in the clean area, half boundary filtering may be signaled.” FIG. 2 depicts In-loop Filters 265 in video encoder 200 and FIG. 3 depicts In-loop Filters 365 in video decoder 300. Note, because filtering is only directionally allowed one way, then the in-loop filtering is considered asymmetric).
Regarding claim 103, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein the picture comprises a gradual decoding refresh picture or a recovering picture (FIG. 7 illustrates Gradual Decoding (GDR) refresh concept. ¶ [0133], “FIG. 7 illustrates the concept of vertical GDR, where a GDR picture with a forced intra area may start at POC(n) and then, forced intra coded clean areas may gradually spread over the N pictures from left to right. At POC(n+N−1), the picture may be completely refreshed (e.g., intra refreshed)”).
Regarding claim 104, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein at least one of the first filtering or the second filtering comprises at least one of: deblocking filtering; sample adaptive offset edge offset filtering; bilatering filtering for luma; bilateral filtering for chroma; cross-component sample adaptive offset filtering; adaptive loop filtering; or cross-component adaptive loop filtering (¶ [0192], “The in-loop filtering operations may include the deblocking filter, sample adaptive offset filter, and adaptive loop filter operations.” ¶ [0137], “cross-component ALF (CC-ALF)”).
Regarding claim 105, Galpin discloses every limitation of claim 99, as outlined above. Additionally, Galpin discloses wherein the refreshed area comprises one of the following:
a middle portion of the picture with at least two sides of the refreshed area adjacent to respective non-refreshed areas (¶ [0164], “at least one virtual boundary (e.g., either horizontal, vertical, or of boundaries of a clean area of any shape).” Note, any shape includes multiple horizontal or vertical virtual boundaries, which define the middle portion of the clean area);
an adjacent corner of the picture with the at least two sides of the refreshed area adjacent respective non-refreshed areas (¶ [0164], “at least one virtual boundary (e.g., either horizontal, vertical, or of boundaries of a clean area of any shape).” Note, any shape includes a combination of horizontal and vertical boundaries, which would define a clean area with a corner); or
adjacent to both the first and second virtual boundaries (¶ [0164], “at least one virtual boundary (e.g., either horizontal, vertical, or of boundaries of a clean area of any shape)”).
Regarding claim 106, the limitations are the same as those in claim 99; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 99 applies equally as well to claim 106.
Regarding claim 107, the limitations are the same as those in claim 100; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 100 applies equally as well to claim 107.
Regarding claim 108, the limitations are the same as those in claim 101; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 101 applies equally as well to claim 108.
Regarding claim 109, the limitations are the same as those in claim 102; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 102 applies equally as well to claim 109.
Regarding claim 110, the limitations are the same as those in claim 103; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 103 applies equally as well to claim 110.
Regarding claim 111, the limitations are the same as those in claim 104; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 104 applies equally as well to claim 111.
Regarding claim 112, the limitations are the same as those in claim 105; however, written in process form instead of machine form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 105 applies equally as well to claim 112.
Regarding claim 113, the limitations are the same as those in claim 99. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 99 applies to claim 113. Additionally, Galpin discloses a computer-readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the following […] (¶ [0130], “a computer program product which is stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and includes program code instructions”).
Regarding claim 114, the limitations are the same as those in claim 100. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 100 applies to claim 114.
Regarding claim 115, the limitations are the same as those in claim 101. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 101 applies to claim 115.
Regarding claim 116, the limitations are the same as those in claim 102. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 102 applies to claim 116.
Regarding claim 117, the limitations are the same as those in claim 103. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 103 applies to claim 117.
Regarding claim 118, the limitations are the same as those in claim 104. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 104 applies to claim 118.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0048726 A1 – Discloses filtering between a boundary of a refreshed region and an un-refreshed region, see ¶¶ [0170-0174].
U.S. Publication No. 2026/0136013 A1 – Discloses bilateral filtering and CCSAO filtering with a virtual boundary, see ¶ [0005].
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
