DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/04/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 11/06/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2024/0137574 A1, hereby Yin, in view of Bordes et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2024/0137504 A1, hereby Bordes.
Yin discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Yin discloses a method for in-loop filtering of reconstructed video, and an apparatus for video coding, the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors (Figs. 4, 8-9, and 11-14), comprising:
“receiving input data for a current block, wherein the input data comprises reconstructed samples of the current block (Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14);
applying at least two in-loop filters to the current block, wherein said at least two in-loop filters belong to an in-loop filter group comprising BIF (Bilateral Filter) and ALF (Adaptive Loop Filter), and wherein . . . processes of said at least two in-loop filters share an input source, one or more . . . rules, one or more processing . . . , or a combination thereof (Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096], disclosing “The bilateral filter 420 may also be applied at position G, which is in parallel with any of the DF 412, the SAO filter 416, and/or the ALF 418. For example, the bilateral filter and a second filter may be applied to the same samples”; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14); and
providing filtered output generated by said applying said at least two in-loop filters to the current block (Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14).”
However, although Yin does not expressly disclose the claimed shared classification, Bordes does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . and wherein classification processes of said at least two in-loop filters share an input source, one or more classification rules, one or more processing units, or a combination thereof (Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]); . . .”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yin and Bordes (hereby Yin-Bordes), to modify the method for in-loop filtering of reconstructed video and the apparatus for video coding of Yin to use the claimed shared classification as in Bordes. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of reducing complexity (see Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the BIF and the ALF share the input source which corresponds to samples right before or after deblocking filter, residual samples in an original or reshaped domain (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096], disclosing “The bilateral filter 420 may also be applied at position G, which is in parallel with any of the DF 412, the SAO filter 416, and/or the ALF 418. For example, the bilateral filter and a second filter may be applied to the same samples”; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14) for the classification processes (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]) of said at least two in-loop filters (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 3, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the BIF and the ALF are performed in parallel (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096], disclosing “The bilateral filter 420 may also be applied at position G, which is in parallel with any of the DF 412, the SAO filter 416, and/or the ALF 418. For example, the bilateral filter and a second filter may be applied to the same samples”; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14).”
Regarding Claim 4, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the BIF and the ALF (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14) share said one or more classification rules (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 7, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the BIF and the ALF are performed (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14) based on same processing units (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 9, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the BIF uses the input source corresponding to samples before deblocking filter (pre-DBF) or residual samples (Yin, Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096], disclosing “The bilateral filter 420 may also be applied at position G, which is in parallel with any of the DF 412, the SAO filter 416, and/or the ALF 418. For example, the bilateral filter and a second filter may be applied to the same samples”; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14).”
Regarding Claim 10, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein BIF classification process (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]) calculates variance (Yin, [0073] and [0082]; Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14) inside a classification unit (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 11, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein the classification unit corresponds to a fixed-size block (Bordes, Figs. 1-3, and [0171]-[0172] and [0175]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 1 and 18 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 12, Yin-Bordes discloses:
“wherein a modifier value for the BIF is derived from a look-up table (Yin, [0080]; Fig. 4, and [0095]-[0096]; see also Figs. 8-9 and 11-14) .”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8, and 13-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose applying filters in parallel, and classification. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Kuo (US 2023/0319315 A1), Figs. 6 and 32.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights