Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated July 15, 2021
`
`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. Claims 1-6, 9, 15, and 19-20 were
`
`canceled by way of previous amendment. No new matter has been addedto the application.
`
`IDS Acknowledgment Requested
`
`As a preliminary matter, Applicant notes that the supplemental IDS filed November30,
`
`2020 to cite Narroschkeet al. (US 2013/0101027) has not been acknowledged. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the examiner acknowledge the IDS in the nextofficial communication.
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Boylan for the time and courtesy extended to Applicant’s
`
`representative during a telephone interview on September 16, 2021. During the interview, the
`
`prior art, in particular, the disclosure in [0129] of Narroschke was discussed, whichrecites “a
`
`strong or a weak deblockingfilter 1s to be applied for a particular line or a columnofpixels.”
`
`(Emphasis added.) The present amendments are prepared andfiled to more clearly distinguish
`
`the claims from the prior art such as Narroschke, as more fully described below.
`
`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 Narroschkeet al. (Narroschke) (US 20140233659) in view of Norkin etal.
`
`(Norkin) (US 20130329814).
`
`Claims 12, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Narroschke in view of Norkin, and in further view of Narroschke et al. (Narroschke ‘027) (US
`
`20130101027).
`
`During the interview of September 16, 2021, the disclosure of Narroschke was discussed
`
`relative to the subject matter of independent claim 7. In particular, §[0129] of Narroschkerecites
`
`“a strong or a weak deblockingfilter is to be applied for a particular line or a column ofpixels.”
`
`(Emphasis added.) Narroschke may be understood to suggest, in reference to its Fig. 5 and
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated July 15, 2021
`
`Fig. 4A reproduced below,applying a strong deblockingfilter for a particular line, and applying
`
`a weak deblockingfilter for a particular line. As best shownin Fig. 5 below,a strong or a weak
`
`deblockingfilter is applied for a particular line on the vertical boundary (510) betweenthefirst
`
`block (Block A) and the second block (Block B).
`
`
`
`
` AEEALELLLEEE:Neereeee
`ggStt[BUOaRSbAD
`
`Se
`
`ae
`
`iattttttttttttttttttttttt
`
`‘tt
`t
`
`
`
`:RMOODNEE,
`
`4A
`
`¢;a,fierce|peeencanenipneeonconnenncnenen
`
`[ue9%CORBle
`
`FIG. 4B
`
`z3
`Saar
`‘YOoeadaeCBUEBYoeoe
`;OOSGDo&e|GaOeekoe}seagesee|ss
`eGgore&&imeGeGeo@beebnee
`QEGeeGal
`SREBEUS@Be
`
`CueoenlaeoneGeeaeaieeameime
`
`
`
`
`ro]
`
`eo
`
`
`:BOUREEHiBEOREHEB”
`,[OhweHaeigeeeeanu
`
`3 B
`
`y
`
`FIG,
`
`Siock 3
`
`1GGGOREBI(oOGEEBoe!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iGRaeeeneSEneesBE:5S
`‘oneeoauciolglateleletatel
`
`Beeneoa.eieeeeneeatojojupopropy
`
`feeeeuenefoefabcopcagwipabe:
`
`
`6606BO0B[8,%,0,0,0/070,0,
`EGGERSEBIDREBEREG!OE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated July 15, 2021
`
`Asa further example in reference to Fig. 4B reproduced above, Narroschke may be
`
`understood to suggest applying a strong deblockingfilter for a particular column, and applying a
`
`weak deblockingfilter for a particular column. It is noted, in this case, strong or a weak
`
`deblocking filtering is performed for a particular column on (or with respect to) the horizontal
`
`boundary betweenthefirst block (420) above the boundary and the second block (440) below the
`
`boundary. Narroscheke, {[0109] (“The line of samples may be a columnor a row ofthe block.
`
`The samples are, for instance, as shown above pixels p0i, q0i, pli,and qli. In this case, the
`
`samples form a row ofthe block in order to deblock the vertical boundary. However, the present
`
`disclosure is equally applicable for deblockingfiltering of horizontal boundaries, in which case
`
`the pixels to be filtered or used for filtering form a column.” (emphases added).) Thatis,
`
`Narroschke’s strong or weak deblockingfilter performed for a particular column is not
`
`deblocking filtering performed on the vertical boundary (510) in Fig. 5 of Narroschke between
`
`the first block (Block A) and the second block (Block B).
`
`Assuch, Narroschke does not teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 7, as amended,
`
`including:
`
`-performing deblocking filtering on a boundary betweenthefirst block and the second
`
`block by usingthefirst filter [selected for the first block] and the secondfilter [selected for the
`
`second block] to change values of pixels in the first block and the secondblock,
`
`-the pixels in the first block and the second block being arranged alonga line across the
`
`boundary, and
`
`-the clip widths applied to the pixels being arranged along the line are asymmetric with
`
`respect to the boundary.
`
`In other words, even if Narroschke is understood to suggest applying a strong deblocking
`
`filter for a column, and applying a weak deblockingfilter for another column,the strong and
`
`weak deblockingfilters are not applied “on a boundary betweenthefirst block [for which the
`
`first filter is selected] and the second block [for which the secondfilter is selected]” as claimed.
`
`That is, the strong and weak deblockingfilters of Narroschke applied for the two columnsare
`
`not applied “to change valuesof pixels in the first block and the secondblock.., the pixels in the
`
`first block and the second block being arranged along a line across the boundary”as further
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated July 15, 2021
`
`claimed. Still further, the strong and weak deblockingfilters of Narroschke applied for the two
`
`columnsdo not changevaluesof the pixels such that “the clip widths applied to the pixels being
`
`arranged along the line are asymmetric with respect to the boundary”as additionally claimed.
`
`Norkin and Narroschke ‘027 do not cure the deficiencies of Narroschke.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 7, as amended,is not
`
`obvious overand, thus, is clearly allowable over the prior art. Allowance of amended claim 7 is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Claim 13 is a decoding method claim that generally corresponds to the decoder claim 7,
`
`and is similarly amended as claim 7 to include similar claim limitations. Therefore, for the
`
`reasons similar to why amendedclaim 7 is allowable, amended claim 13 is submitted to be also
`
`allowable overthe prior art. Allowance of claim 13, as amended, is respectfully requested.
`
`Further, Narroschke does not teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 21 directed to a
`
`decoder, including:
`
`-determin[ing] whether to apply a deblockingfilter to a boundary betweena first block
`
`and a second block,
`
`-apply[ing] the deblockingfilter to the boundary to modify valuesof pixels in the first
`
`block and the secondblock,
`
`-the pixels being arranged alonga line across the boundary, and
`
`-the clip widths applied to the pixels arranged along the line are asymmetric with respect
`
`to the boundary.
`
`Specifically, even if Narroschke is understood to suggest applying a strong or weak
`
`deblockingfilter for a column, the strong or weak deblockingfilter is net applied “to a boundary
`
`betweena first block and a second block” to “modify values of pixels in the first block and the
`
`secondblock.., the pixels arranged along a line across the boundary”asrecited in claim 21.
`
`Rather, Narroschke’s strong or weak deblockingfilter for a column is applied to the horizontal
`
`boundary (see Fig. 4B) and not to the vertical “boundary betweena first block and a second
`
`block” as claimed. Further, the strong or weak deblocking filter of Narroschke applied for a
`
`column does not modify values of the pixels such that “the clip widths applied to the pixels
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. 16/591,903
`Reply to Office Action Dated July 15, 2021
`
`arranged along the line are asymmetric with respect to the boundary”as additionally recited in
`
`claim 21.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 is clearly allowable
`
`over the teaching of the prior art including Narroschke. Allowanceof claim 21 is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`The rest of the pending claimsall depend from claims 7, 13 or 21. These dependent
`
`claims are submitted to be allowable for at least their dependency from allowable base claims,as
`
`well as for the further subject matter specifically recited therein.
`
`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
`
`sbi jhl
`8092064_1
`
`11
`
`