Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated December 21, 2020
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this application in view of the above
`
`amendments and the following remarks. Claims 7-8, 10-14, 16-18 and 21-25 will be pending
`
`upon entry of this amendment. Claims 7 and 13 are amended, and claims 21-25 are new. No
`
`new matter has been addedto the application.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Boylan for the time and courtesy extended to Applicant’s
`
`representative during a telephone interview on February 9, 2021. During the interview, 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 7 was discussed and an agreement was reachedthat
`
`clarifying the independentclaims to explicitly recite that “clip widths used at the same time are
`
`asymmetric with respect to the boundary” helps overcomethe present rejection subject to further
`
`consideration and search. The present amendmentfurther particularly defines the subject matter
`
`that applicant considers as their invention in view of the discussion during the interview.
`
`Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are Overcome
`
`Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Narroschkeetal. (herein after will be referred to as Narroschke) (US
`
`20140233659) in view of Norkinetal. (herein after will be referred to as Norkin) (US
`
`20130329814).
`
`Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Narroschkein view of Norkin, and in further view of Narroschkeet al. (herein after will be
`
`referred to as Narroschke ‘027) (US 20130101027).
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of the claims based on these grounds.
`
`Independent claims 7 and 13 recite, among others:
`
`--change values ofpixels in the first block and the second block by usingthefirst
`
`filter and the secondfilter such that change amounts of the respective values are within
`
`respective clip widths, the pixels in the first block and the second block being arranged
`
`
`
`along a line across a boundary betweenthefirst block and the second block, andtheclip
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated December 21, 2020
`
`widths applied to the pixels arranged along the line are asymmetric with respect to the
`
`boundary.
`
`Support is found, for example, in §][03 13 ]&[0342] of the application as published (US
`
`2020/0036975), reproduced below:
`
`[0313] When the calculated d is larger than the second threshold value (Yesin
`$104), loop filter 120 determinesa filter characteristic (S105), and performs
`filtering using the determinedfilter characteristic (S106). For example, a 5-tap
`filter of (1, 2, 2,2, 1)/81s used. Specifically, for p10 indicated in FIG.12, a
`calculation of (1 x p30+ 2 x p20 +2 x pl0+2 x q1l0+ 1 x q20)/8is
`performed. Here, in the filtering, clipping is performed so that variationfalls
`within a certain range without excessive smoothing. Clipping here is threshold
`processing which, for example, when a threshold value for clipping is tc and a
`pixel value to be filtered is g, only allowsthe filtered pixel value to take a
`
`value within the range of q +tc.
`
`BEG. 18
`
`p
`é
`
` BLGCA SOAUINDARY
`g
`
`uy
`
`am
`
`po[v0[rotao a
`
`
`
`::POAPPLAANAPPAAAAAAMEEEAAAotgeebth
`
`$x
`
`:
`
`4
`
`
`
`CAAAMGELLELOLILELLLEOLYISLLELSLLELEELELS,
`
`
`
`
`tee4zg
`
`[0342] Next, a fourth approach for changing weights asymmetricallyis
`described Loop filter 120 performe a filter calculation using a filter
`coefficient of a reference filter. Next, when a change amount A in pixel value
`before and after the filter calculation exceeds a clip width which is a reference
`value,loopfilter126clipsthechangeamountAtotheclipwidth,Loopfilter
`126 sets asymmetrical clin widths acrass a block boundary.
`
`In the invention as recited in claim 7, threshold processing is performed in that, where a
`
`clipping threshold is clip width tc and a pixel value to be filtered is q, the filtered pixel value takes
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated December 21, 2020
`
`
`a value within the range of q+tc. Further, asymmetrical clip widths are applied to pixels arranged
`
`along a line across a block boundary.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are Overcome
`
`The office has madethe following finding in the final office action:
`
`Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.0. 108 as being
`
`unpatertiable over Narroschke at al (herein afier wil be referrad to as Narroschke) (US
`
`20740233658) in view of Narkin et af. (herein affer wil be referred to as Norkin} (US
`
`Pho043082981 4}.
`
`*«
`
`change values of pixels in the first Block and the secora block by using the first
`
`iter ancl the second fer such that change amounts of the respective values are
`
`wilhin respective clip widths, the clip widths are asymmieiric with respectto the
`
`boundary.
`
`[See Narroschke [0136-0141] Different clipping thresholds
`
`including Tel, To2 and Te3. Also, in 0138, these threshalds control the
`
`maximum and minimum clipping values. Algo, see Fig. 5, Block boundary
`
`between block A and B.}
`
`However, in Narroschke, the first threshold value Tcl is not one of clipping thresholds
`
`(clip widths), and further, either the second threshold value Tc2 is used or the third threshold value
`
`Tc3
`
`is used as a clip width. That is, clip widths Tc2 and Tc3 are not used together as two
`
`asymmetric clip widths applied to the pixels arranged along a line across a block boundary. To the
`
`contrary, in Narroschke, either clip width of Tc2 or Tc3 is applied to the pixels arranged along a
`
`line across the block boundary.
`
`This is clear based on the disclosure of J] [0133]-[0141] of Narroschke. Narroschke
`
`describes that the first threshold value Tcl is used to determine whether weak filtering is to be
`
`applied, and not used as a clip width to clip variation amounts ({/[0133]&[0134]). When a weak
`
`filter is to be applied, and p1 and/or q1 is further filtered, the second threshold value Tc2 is to be
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated December 21, 2020
`
`used for clipping of p1 and/or q1 ({{[0136]&[0137]). On the other hand, whena strongfilter is to
`
`be applied, the third threshold value Tc3 is to be used for clipping of pO, pl, p2, q0, ql and q2
`
`(4[0139]).
`
`Significantly, when a weakfilter is applied to pl and/or q1, clip width Tc2 is applied to
`
`pl and/or q1 arranged along a line across a block boundary and, whena strongfilter is applied to
`
`p90, pl, p2, q0, ql and q2,clip width Tc3 is applied to pO, pl, p2, q0, ql and q2 arranged along a
`
`
`
`line across a block boundary. Narroschke does not even suggest the possibility of usingthetwo
`
`clip widths Tc2 and Tc3 applied asymmetrically to pixels arranged along a line across the block
`
`boundary.
`
`Therefore, applicant respectfully submits that claims 7 and 13 are now clearly allowable
`
`over Narroschke. Neither Norkin nor Narroschke ‘027 cures the deficiencies of Narroschke and,
`
`therefore, claims 7 and 13 are allowable overthe prior art alone or in any combination.
`
`Allowance of claims 7 and 13 and their respective dependent claims is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`New Claims 21-25
`
`Newclaims 21-25 are added, of which claim 21 is in independent form. Support for new
`
`claims 21-25 is found, for example, in {[0420] of the application, reproduced below:
`
`In addition, loop filter 120 may perform different processing
`[0420]
`according to the kind of the prediction mode used for a block, or may perform
`the above processing only on a block for which a particular prediction mode is
`used. For example, loop filter 120 may perform different processing between a
`block for which intra prediction is used, a block for which inter prediction is
`used, and a mergedblock.
`
`Similar to claims 7 and 13 discussed above, new independent claim 21 also recites, among
`
`others, “apply the deblockingfilter to the boundary to modify values of pixels in the first block
`
`and the second block such that modified values are within respective clip widths if the deblocking
`
`filter is determined to be applied, the pixels being arranged along a line across the boundary,
`
`wherein the clip widths applied to the pixels arranged along the line are asymmetric with respect
`
`to the boundary.” Therefore, for the reasons similar to why claims 7 and 13 are allowable over the
`
`prior art, claim 21 too is submitted to be allowable over the priorart.
`
`Favorable consideration and allowance of claim 21, as well as its dependent claims 22-
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated December 21, 2020
`
`25, are respectfully requested.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Forat least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests allowance of the pending claims.
`
`In the event the Examinerfinds minor informalities that can be resolved by telephone conference
`
`or if the Examinerbelieves a telephone conference would facilitate prosecution of this application,
`
`the Examiner is urged to contact Applicant’s undersigned representative by telephone at (206)
`
`622-4900 in order to expeditiously resolve prosecution of this application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Seed Intellectual Property Law Group Lip
`
`/Shoko Leek/
`Shoko I. Leek
`Registration No. 43,746
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Phone: (206) 622-4900 | Fax:
`
`(206) 682-6031
`
`STL jhl
`77352511
`
`11
`
`