www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/591,903
`
`10/03/2019
`
`Ryuichi KANOH
`
`735256.422C1
`
`3237
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`BOYLAN, JAMES T
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2486
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/15/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`7-8,10-14,16-18 and 21-25 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 7-8,10-14,16-18 and 21-25 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[M) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a) All
`1.{¥] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210415
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/591,903
`KANOH etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`JAMES T BOYLAN
`2486
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 03/22/2021.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2021 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. Applicant has stated that clarifying the independent claims to recite
`
`“clip widths used at the same time are asymmetric with respect to the boundary” would
`
`overcome theprior art rejection {Refer to Remarks Pg.
`
`1
`
`Interview Summary}. The
`
`examiner does not see the independent claims defining “using the clip widths at the
`
`same time”. Please clarify the claims.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissionfiled on
`
`03/22/2021 has been entered.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth insection 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare such thatthe claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinaryskill inthe art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`negated by the mannerin whichthe invention was made.
`
`Claims 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Narroschke etal. (herein after will be referred to as Narroschke) (US
`
`20140233659) in view of Norkin et al. (herein after will be referred to as Norkin) (US
`
`20130329814).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Narroschke discloses a decoder comprising:
`
`processing circuitry; and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry, wherein
`
`the processingcircuitry is configured to: [See Narroschke [0238] CPU and
`
`memory.]
`
`using clipping such that change amounts of the respective values are within
`
`respective clip widths, [See Narroschke [0078] Delta is clipped using
`
`threshold Tc.]
`
`the pixels in the first block and the second block being arranged along a line
`
`across a boundary betweenthefirst block and the second block, and [See
`
`Narroschke [Fig. 5]]
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 4
`
`e
`
`change values of pixels in the first block and the second block by using the first
`
`filter and the secondfilter such that change amounts of the respective values are
`
`within respective clip widths, the clip widths applied to the pixels arranged along
`
`the line are asymmetric with respect to the boundary.
`
`[See Narroschke [0136-
`
`0141] Different clipping thresholds including Tc1, Tc2 and Tc3. Also, in
`
`0138, these thresholds control the maximum and minimum clipping values.
`
`Also, see Fig. 5, Block boundary between block A and B.]
`
`Narroschke does notexplicitly disclose
`
`e
`
`selecta first filter for a first block based at least on a prediction mode usedfor the
`
`first block; select a secondfilter for a second block; and
`
`However, Norkin ‘814 does disclose
`
`e
`
`selecta first filter for a first block based at least on a prediction mode usedfor the
`
`first block; select a secondfilter for a second block; and [See Norkin [0042]
`
`Independentfiltering decision for the blocks of pixels separated by a block
`
`boundary....adapt the particular deblocking filtering at each block based on
`
`its local structures. Also, see 0168, the prediction block output is
`
`processed bya filtering control device to control any deblocking filtering
`
`that is applied to the reference block.]
`
`It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`effective filing date to modify the device by Narroschke to add the teachings of Norkin,
`
`in order to improve upon deblocking filtering over block boundaries [See Norkin [0014-
`
`0015].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 8, Narroschke (modified by Norkin ‘814) disclose the device of claim 1.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke does not explicitly disclose
`
`wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select the secondfilter for the
`
`second block based at least on a prediction mode used for the second block.
`
`However, Norkin does disclose
`
`wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select the secondfilter for the
`
`second block based at least on a prediction mode used for the second block.
`
`[See Norkin [0042] Independentfiltering decision for the blocks of pixels
`
`separated by a block boundary....adapt the particular deblocking filtering at
`
`each block based on its local structures. Also, see 0168, the prediction
`
`block output is processed bya filtering control device to control any
`
`deblocking filtering that is applied to the reference block.]
`
`Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the device of claim 3.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke discloses
`
`wherein at least one of the respective clip widths for the pixels located at
`
`respective positions in the first block is different from a clip width for the pixel
`
`located at a corresponding position in the second block with respect to the
`
`boundary.
`
`[See Narroschke [0136-0141] Different clipping thresholds
`
`including Tc1, Tc2 and Tc3. Also,
`
`in 0138, these thresholds control the
`
`maximum and minimum clipping values. Also, see Fig. 5, Block boundary
`
`between block A and B.]
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 11, Narroschke (modified by Norkin ‘814) disclose the device of claim
`
`3. Furthermore, Narroschke discloses
`
`e wherein the pixels in the first block includeafirst pixel located at a first position,
`
`and the pixels in the second block include a second pixel located at a second
`
`position corresponding to the first position with respect to the boundary, [See
`
`Narroschke [Fig. 5]]
`
`e wherein the clip widths includeafirst clip width and a second clip width
`
`corresponding to the first pixel and the secondpixel, respectively, and wherein
`
`the first clip width is different from the second clip width.
`
`[See Narroschke
`
`[0136-0141] Different clipping thresholds including Tc1, Tc2 and Tc3. Also,
`
`in 0138, these thresholds control the maximum and minimum clipping
`
`values. Also, see Fig. 5, Block boundary between block A and B.]
`
`Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
`
`Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
`
`Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
`
`Regarding claim 21, Narroschke discloses a decoder comprising:
`
`e
`
`amemory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: [See
`
`Narroschke [0184] Processor/Memory for execution.]
`
`e
`
`apply the deblocking filter 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.
`
`[See
`
`Narroschke [0136-0141] Different clipping thresholds including Tc1, Tc2
`
`and Tc3. Also,
`
`in 0138, these thresholds control the maximum and
`
`minimum clipping values. Also, see Fig. 5, Block boundary between block
`
`A and B.]
`
`Narroschke does not explicitly disclose
`
`
`
`e determine whether to apply a deblocking filter to a boundary betweenafirst block
`
`and a second block based on a prediction mode applied to a current picture, the
`
`current picture including the first block and the second block; and
`
`However, Norkin does disclose
`
`
`
`e determine whether to apply a deblocking filter to a boundary betweenafirst block
`
`and a second block based on a prediction mode applied to a current picture, the
`
`current picture including the first block and the second block; and [See Norkin
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 8
`
`[0042] Independentfiltering decision for the blocks of pixels separated by a
`
`block boundary....adapt the particular deblocking filtering at each block
`
`based on its local structures. Also, see 0168, the prediction block output is
`
`processed bya filtering control device to control any deblocking filtering
`
`that is applied to the reference block.]
`
`Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 7.
`
`Regarding claim 22, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the decoder of claim 21.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke discloses
`
`e wherein the pixels includeafirst pixel in the first block and a second pixel in the
`
`second block,a first distance between the boundary and the first pixel is the
`
`same as a second distance between the boundary and the second pixel,
`
`[See
`
`Narroschke [Fig. 5] Blocks A and B. Pixel distance between each pixel
`
`relative to the border in the blocks AB is the same.]
`
`e
`
`the clip widths include a first clip width and a second clip width applied to the first
`
`pixel and the secondpixel, respectively, and thefirst clip width is different from
`
`the secondclip width. [See Narroschke [0136-0141] Different clipping
`
`thresholds including Tc1, Tc2 and Tc3. Also,
`
`in 0138, these thresholds
`
`control the maximum and minimum clipping values. Also, see Fig. 5, Block
`
`boundary between block A and B.]
`
`Regarding claim 23, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the decoder of claim 22.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke discloses
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 9
`
`e wherein the first distance is equal to a length of a pixel.
`
`[See Narroschke[Fig.
`
`5] Blocks A and B. Pixel distance between eachpixel relative to the border
`
`in the blocks A/B is the same.]
`
`Regarding claim 25, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the decoder of claim 22.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke does not explicitly disclose
`
`e wherein the prediction mode is selected from a group consisting of an intra
`
`prediction mode and aninter prediction mode.
`
`However, Norkin does disclose
`
`e wherein the prediction mode is selected from a group consisting of an intra
`
`prediction mode and aninter prediction mode.
`
`[See Norkin [0042] Independent
`
`filtering decision for the blocks of pixels separated by a block
`
`boundary....adapt the particular deblocking filtering at each block based on
`
`its local structures. Also, see 0168, the prediction block outputis
`
`processed bya filtering control device to control any deblocking filtering
`
`that is applied to the reference block.....output from either the motion
`
`compensator or intra predictor used in the prediction (which is also shown
`
`figuratively in Fig. 14).]
`
`Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 7.
`
`Claims 12, 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Narroschke etal. (herein after will be referred to as Narroschke) (US
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 10
`
`20140233659) in view of Norkin (US 20130329814) and in further view of Narroschke et
`
`al. (herein after will be referred to as Narroschke ‘027) (US 20130101027).
`
`Regarding claim 12, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the device of claim 11.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke does not explicitly disclose
`
`wherein the pixels in the first block includeafirst additional pixel located atafirst
`
`additional position and the pixels in the second block include a second additional
`
`pixel located at a second additional position which correspondstothefirst
`
`additional position with respect to the boundary, and the clip widths includeafirst
`
`additional clip width and a second additional clip width corresponding to thefirst
`
`additional pixel and the second additional pixel, respectively, and wherein the
`
`first additional clip width is same as the second additional clip width.
`
`However, Narroschke does disclose
`
`wherein the pixels in the first block includeafirst additional pixel located atafirst
`
`additional position and the pixels in the second block include a second additional
`
`pixel located at a second additional position which correspondstothefirst
`
`additional position with respect to the boundary, and the clip widths includeafirst
`
`additional clip width and a second additional clip width corresponding to thefirst
`
`additional pixel and the second additional pixel, respectively, and wherein the
`
`first additional clip width is same as the second additional clip width.
`
`[See
`
`Narroschke ‘027 [Fig. 5] Boundary (550) with pixels between adjacent
`
`blocks. Also, see 0086, Each possible sample position (i.e. P1, Q1) has an
`
`associated individual threshold.]
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 11
`
`It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`effective filing date to modify the device by Norkin (modified by Norkin) to add the
`
`teachings of Narroschke ‘027,
`
`in order to improve upon the precision of the deblocking
`
`filter which will reduce the amountof blocking artifacts [See Narroschke [0017]].
`
`Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
`
`Regarding claim 24, Narroschke (modified by Norkin) disclose the device of claim 21.
`
`Furthermore, Narroschke does not explicitly disclose
`
`e wherein the pixels include a third pixel in the first block and a fourth pixel in the
`
`second block, a third distance between the boundary and the third pixel is the
`
`same as a fourth distance between the boundary and the fourth pixel, and the
`
`third distance is different from the first distance, the clip widths include a third clip
`
`width and a fourth clip width applied to the third pixel and the fourth pixel,
`
`respectively, and the third clip width is different from the fourth clip width.
`
`However, Narroschke ‘027 does disclose
`
`e wherein the pixels include a third pixel in the first block and a fourth pixel in the
`
`second block, a third distance between the boundary and the third pixel is the
`
`same as a fourth distance between the boundary and the fourth pixel, and the
`
`third distance is different from the first distance, the clip widths includeathird clip
`
`width and a fourth clip width applied to the third pixel and the fourth pixel,
`
`respectively, and the third clip width is different from the fourth clip width. [See
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 12
`
`Narroschke ‘027 [Fig. 5] Boundary (550) with pixels between adjacent
`
`blocks. Also, see 0086, Each possible sample position (i.e. P1, Q1) has an
`
`associated individual threshold.]
`
`Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 12.
`
`Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and
`
`applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whosetelephone numberis
`
`(571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone numberfor
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/591,903
`Art Unit: 2486
`
`Page 13
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivateP air. Should you have questions on access to the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-
`
`272-1000.
`
`/JAMES T BOYLAN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
`
`