Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2023-07-03)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1\. A video decoding method, comprising:
determining a direction of a reconstructed luma block;
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter; and
applying the plurality of filter coefficients to the reconstructed luma block to determine an offset to the direction of the reconstructed luma block.

2\. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block.

3\. The method according to claim 2, wherein adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block comprises:
decoding the encoded bit stream to determine a strength level associated with the offset;
and adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block at the strength level.

4\. The method according to claim 3, wherein the strength level is a positive integer.

5\. The method according to claim 3, wherein the index is signaled in coding parameters for a filter block.

6\. The method according to claim 5, wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block.

7\. The method according to claim 1, wherein the offset is determined:
in parallel to a loop restoration unit, in parallel to a constraint directional enhancement filter, after the loop restoration unit is applied to the reconstructed luma block, or
after the constraint directional enhancement filter is applied to the reconstructed luma block.

8\. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on a flag, whether the directional cross component filter is enabled for a video sequence or a video frame.

9\. The method according to claim 8, further comprising:
determining the directional cross component filter is enabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a first value;
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a second value; and
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream.

10\. The method according to claim 8, wherein the flag is signaled in a video sequence header or a video frame header.

11\. The method according to claim 10, wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if:
a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and
the video sequence comprises a chroma component.

12\. A video decoding apparatus, comprising:
a memory figured to store instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
determining a direction of a reconstructed luma block;
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter; and
applying the plurality of filter coefficients to the reconstructed luma block to determine an offset to the direction of the reconstructed luma block.

13\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block.

14\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 13, wherein adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block comprises:
decoding the encoded bit stream to determine a strength level associated with the offset;
and adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block at the strength level.

15\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the strength level is a positive integer.

16\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the index is signaled in coding parameters for a filter block.

17\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block.

18\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the offset is determined:
in parallel to a loop restoration unit, in parallel to a constraint directional enhancement filter, after the loop restoration unit is applied to the reconstructed luma block, or
after the constraint directional enhancement filter is applied to the reconstructed luma block.

19\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
determining, based on a flag, whether the directional cross component filter is enabled for a video sequence or a video frame.

20\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform:
determining the directional cross component filter is enabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a first value;
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a second value; and
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream.

21\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the flag is signaled in a video sequence header or a video frame header.

22\. The video decoding apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if:
a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and
the video sequence comprises a chroma component.

23\. A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform a video decoding method, the method comprising:
determining a direction of a reconstructed luma block;
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter; and
applying the plurality of filter coefficients to the reconstructed luma block to determine an offset to the direction of the reconstructed luma block. 76 77 78 79 80 81

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation the index in line 1.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 properly depends on claim 5 and is therefore likewise rejected.
Examiner Remarks
Examiner interprets “the index” of claim 5 to be “the strength level” as claimed in claim 3 in examining the subject matter of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1 – 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 – 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 23, Du teaches a video decoding method, a video decoding apparatus comprising a memory configured to store instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform the video decoding method (e.g. par. 238: describing that the video decoder includes memory storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions), and a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform the video decoding method (e.g. par. 238: describing a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors), the video decoding method comprising:
determining a direction of a reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21 and 24, and pars. 175 – 178, 191, and 224: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) of a reconstructed luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block);
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter (e.g. pars. 175 and 217: describing that filtering strengths and weighting factors are obtained from the encoded bitstream, wherein filtering strengths and weighting factors are the equivalent of filter coefficients); and
applying the plurality of filter coefficients to the reconstructed luma block to determine an offset to the direction of the reconstructed luma block (e.g. par. 198: describing that the system applies the filter to the reconstructed luma block to determine an offset to the CDEF reconstructed luma block, wherein CDEF reconstructed luma block is the equivalent of the direction of the reconstructed luma block).
Turning to claims 2 and 13, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21 and 24, and pars. 191 and 198: depicting and describing that the offset is added to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and claims 12 and 13, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block comprises: decoding the encoded bit stream to determine a strength level associated with the offset; and adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block at the strength level (e.g. pars. 193 and 217: describing that the system determines a weight associated with the offset from the bitstream and adds the offset to the reconstructed chroma block based on the determined weight, wherein the weight is the equivalent of the strength level).
Turning to claims 4 and 15, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3 , and claims 12 - 14, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the strength level is a positive integer (e.g. par. 217: describing that the weight is greater than zero, reasonably suggesting that the strength level is positive).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 - 3 , and claims 12 - 14, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the index is signaled in coding parameters for a filter block (e.g. par. 217: describing that the offset weight is signaled in the coding parameters for the filtering block).
Turning to claims 7 and 18, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the offset is determined: in parallel to a loop restoration unit, in parallel to a constraint directional enhancement filter, after the loop restoration unit is applied to the reconstructed luma block, or after the constraint directional enhancement filter is applied to the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 24 and 25, and pars. 206, 207, and 224: describing that the offset is determined in parallel to or after a loop restoration unit or in parallel to or after a constraint directional enhancement filter).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
determining, based on a flag, whether the directional cross component filter is enabled for a video sequence or a video frame (e.g. par. 216: describing that the system determines, based on an enable flag, whether joint component filter is enabled for a video sequence (enabling flag signaled in the sequence parameter set) or a video frame (picture parameter set).
Turning to claims 10 and 21, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and claims 12 and 21, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video sequence header or a video frame header (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter flag is signaled in the sequence parameter set or the picture parameter set, wherein the sequence parameter set is the equivalent of the video sequence header, and wherein the picture parameter set is the equivalent of the video frame header).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 17  is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 5 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Chen et al., “An Overview of core coding Tools in the AV1 Video Codec,” 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), San Francisco, CA, 2018, pp. 41 – 45 (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5, and claims 12 -14 and 16, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block.
Chen, however, teaches a video decoding method and apparatus:
wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block (e.g. section 4: describing that the filter block is a 64x64 block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Chen in order for the filter block to be a 64x64 block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 8 and 19, resepctively above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0368169)(hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and claims 12 and 19, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
determining the directional cross component filter is enabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a first value (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter is enabled if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream is “on”, wherein the JCF filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter, and wherein the flag being “on” is the equivalent of the flag having a first value); and
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a second value (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter is enabled if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream is “off”, wherein the JCF filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter, and wherein the flag being “off” is the equivalent of the flag having a second value).
Du does not explicitly teach:
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream.
Hu, however, teaches a video decoding method and video decoding apparatus:
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream (e.g. par. 168: describing that the system determines the cross component filter to be disabled if the flag is not signaled in the bitstream, wherein the cross component filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Hu in order to determine the directional cross component filter is disable if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces processing time and increase coding efficiency (Hu, e.g. par. 7: describing the desire to reduce processing time and to increase coding efficiency).
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 10 and 21, respectively above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0264106) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 10, and claims 12, 19, and 21, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if: a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component.
Zhang, however, teaches a video decoding method and video decoding apparatus:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if: a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component (e.g. claim 1: describing that the system signals the cross component filter enabled flag if the associated loop filter is enabled for a video sequence, the video sequence including a chroma component, wherein the associated loop filter is the equivalent of the constraint directional enhancement filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Zhang in order to signal the flag if a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS I. Status of Claims In the Non-Final Office Action dated July 3, 2023, the Office: a) rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being indefinite for alleged informalities; b) rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8,10,12-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du (US 2021/0266604); c) rejected claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of Chen ("An Overview of core coding Tools in the AVi Video Codec," 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), San Francisco, CA, 2018, pp. 41-45); d) rejected claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of Hu (US 2021/0368169); and e) rejected claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Du in view of Zhang (US 2022/0264106). By this Amendment, Applicant amends claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, and 23; and cancels claims 2 and 13 without prejudice or disclaimer of their subject matter. The amendments to the claims are supported by the original claims and throughout the published specification at, for example, paragraph [0199]. No new matter has been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-12, and 14- 23 are pending, with claims 1, 12, and 23 being independent. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections in view of the following remarks. In addition, Applicant does not necessarily agree with or acquiesce to the Office's characterization of the claims or the cited art, even if those characterizations are not addressed herein. II. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Office rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being indefinite for alleged informalities. Specifically, the Office alleged that there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the index" recited in claim 5. Office Action at 2. Applicant has amended claim 5 to recite --an index is signaled in coding parameters [[for]] to indicate a strength level associated with a filter block-- . Similar amendment has been made to claim 16. The amendments solve the alleged antecedent basis issue. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 are definite. Claims 6 and 17 each depend from claims 5 and 16, respectively, and therefore are also definite. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b). III. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du. In order to properly establish that a reference anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element of the claim must be found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in that single reference. Furthermore, "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . .. claim." See M.P.E.P. § 2131, quoting Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1126, 1236, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Du does not disclose each and every element of amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claim 1 incorporates the subject matter in claim 3 and recites, inter alia: determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block and the plurality of filter coefficients; and adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block. (Emphases added.) Du does not disclose or suggest these elements. A. No reason to combine different embodiments of Du In rejecting original claims 1 and 2, the Office cites Du's constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) embodiment for disclosing the claimed "direction of the reconstructed luma block," Office Action at 3 (citing paragraphs [0175]-[0178] of Du), and relies on Du's joint-component filtering (JCF) embodiment for disclosing the claimed "adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block." Id. at 4 (citing Figs. 21 and 24, and paragraphs [0191] and [0198] of Du). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection because the Office took two separate embodiments of Du and combined them without conducting any obviousness analysis required by the MPEP. Combining different and distinct embodiments without performing an obviousness analysis is improper. See Net Moneyln, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, the Federal Circuit stated that "differences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference . . .includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Id. at 1371. In this application, as previously discussed, Du's CDEF and JCF are directed to separate and distinct embodiments, thus requiring the Office to at least set forth aprimafacie case for combining those two embodiments under an obviousness analysis. The Office, however, failed to perform any obviousness analysis regarding why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine two distinct embodiments of Du. Without this analysis, the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §§ 2141-2144. B. No reason to combine different embodiments of Du Moreover, even if assuming these two embodiments can be combined, which Applicant does not concede, nowhere does Du disclose or suggest the claimed combination of "determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block and the plurality of filter coefficients" and "adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block." (Emphases added.) For example, as shown in Fig. 24, reproduced below, Du merely discloses that "the input [of the JCF filter] is Y color component, and the output is applied to the Cb and Cr color components as offset." Du, [0198]. This at best discloses determining an offset based on a CDEF reconstructed luma block and adding the offset to a collocated reconstructed chroma block. But it does not disclose or suggest the offset is determined "based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block," as claimed (emphasis added). The Office alleges that the "CDEF reconstructed luma block is the equivalent of the direction of the reconstructed luma block." Office Action at 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Du's Fig. 24 does not disclose or suggest the input to the JCF contains any "direction of the reconstructed luma block," as claimed (emphasis added)." SVG {EMBED HERE} 3.074.81Du, Fig. 24. Therefore, Du fails to disclose or suggest the claimed combination of: determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block and the plurality of filter coefficients; and adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block. (Emphases added.) Accordingly, Du does not anticipate amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claims 12 and 23 each recite similar elements, and are also not anticipated by Du for the same reasons. Moreover, claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 14-16, 18, 19, 21 each depend from one of claims 1 and 12, and therefore are also not anticipated by Du at least due to their dependence from an allowable base claim. Moreover, the rejection of claims 2 and 13 is rendered moot by their cancellation. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by Du. IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 6, 9, 11, 17, 20, and 22 as being unpatentable over Du in view of Chen, Hu, or Zhang. As discussed above, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 23 are allowable over Du. The Office does not allege Chen, Hu, or Zhang can cure the above-discussed deficiency of Du. Therefore, amended independent claims 1, 12, and 23 are allowable over Du in view of Chen, Hu, or Zhang. Claims 6, 9, 11, 17, 20, and 22 each depend from one of claims 1 and 12, and therefore are also allowable over Du in view of Chen, Hu, or Zhang at least due to their dependence from an allowable base claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully request withdrawal of the rejections of claims 6, 9, 11, 17, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. V. Conclusion In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this application and the timely allowance of the pending claims. Please grant any extensions of time required to enter this response and charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account No. 06-0916. Respectfully submitted, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Dated: September 29, 2023 By: /Aaron J. Capron/ Aaron J. Capron Reg. No. 56,170 (650) 849-6600

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 29 September 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10 – 11, applicant argues that the rejection combines two separate embodiments of Du without proper 103 analysis and that even if the separate embodiments are combinable, Du does not teach “determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block” and “adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block” as claimed because Du does not teach determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Du in maintaining the rejection.
Du first teaches the operation of a Joint-component filtering (JCF) unit. See, e.g. Fig. 21 and pars. 191 – 203: depicting and describing the operation of a JCF unit. Specifically, Du teaches that the JCF unit takes a reconstructed luma block as input, determines an offset for corresponding chroma blocks to the luma block based on the reconstructed luma block, and adds the determined offset to the chroma blocks. See, e.g. pars. 197 - 198: describing that the JCF takes reconstructed luma block (Y color component) as input, the JCF unit determines an offset based on the luma block, and outputs the offset to be added to the corresponding chroma block (Cb and Cr color components) of the luma block. Du additionally teaches a constrained directional enhancement filter (CDEF) unit, the CDEF unit reconstructing blocks of image data by filtering the input image data block along an identified direction thereby generating a reconstructed image data block according to the identified direction. See, e.g. pars. 173 – 175: describing a CDEF filter unit that reconstructs image data blocks by adaptively filtering the input image data block along an identified direction. Next, Du teaches an example filtering path that includes both the above described JCF and CDEF units. See, e.g. Fig. 24 and par. 206: depicting and describing a filtering path including both the JCF and CDEF units. In other words, Du teaches that the JCF and CDEF units are not used as alternative embodiments of each other, but rather used in direct conjunction with each other. Specifically, Du teaches that the CDEF unit provides data blocks reconstructed according to an identified direction as input to the JCF unit, the JCF unit generates offsets as output based on the data block reconstructed according to an identified direction and adds the offset to corresponding image blocks. See, e.g. Fig. 24 and par. 206: depicting and describing that the CDEF unit provides data blocks reconstructed according to an identified direction as input to the JCF unit, the JCF unit generates offsets as output based on the data block reconstructed according to an identified direction and adds the offset to corresponding image blocks. As discussed above, reconstructed image data blocks used as input to the JCF unit are reconstructed luma blocks, the JCF unit generating offsets based on the reconstructed luma block to be added to corresponding chroma blocks. e.g. pars. 197 - 198: describing that the JCF takes reconstructed luma block (Y color component) as input, the JCF unit determines an offset based on the luma block, and outputs the offset to be added to the corresponding chroma block (Cb and Cr color components) of the luma block. When used in conjunction with the CDEF unit as taught by Du, this necessarily includes receiving a reconstructed luma block, the luma block reconstructed based on an identified direction, generating offsets for chroma blocks based on the luma block reconstructed according to an identified direction, and adding the offset to corresponding chroma blocks, wherein generating offsets for chroma blocks based on the luma block reconstructed according to an identified direction is the equivalent of determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block. Du, therefore, teaches “determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block” and “adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block” as claimed. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 3 -5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 -16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 23, Du teaches a video decoding method, a video decoding apparatus comprising a memory configured to store instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform the video decoding method (e.g. par. 238: describing that the video decoder includes memory storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions), and a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform the video decoding method (e.g. par. 238: describing a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors), the video decoding method comprising:
determining a direction of a reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21 and 24, and pars. 175 – 178, 191, and 224: depicting and describing that the system performs constraint directional enhancement filtering (CDEF) of a reconstructed luma (Y) block, performing CDEF including determining a direction of the luma block);
decoding an encoded bit stream to determine a plurality of filter coefficients associated with a directional cross component filter (e.g. pars. 175 and 217: describing that filtering strengths and weighting factors are obtained from the encoded bitstream, wherein filtering strengths and weighting factors are the equivalent of filter coefficients);
determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block and the plurality of filter coefficients (e.g. Figs. 21 and 24, and pars. 175, 198 and 206: describing that the system reconstructs a luma block by applying the plurality of filter coefficients according to the determined direction, and that the system determines an offset based on the reconstructed luma, wherein determining an offset based on the reconstructed luma block, the reconstructed luma block reconstructed according to a determined direction and a plurality of filter coefficients is the equivalent of determining an offset based on the direction of the reconstructed luma block and the plurality of filter coefficients); and
adding the offset to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 21 and 24, and pars. 191 and 198: depicting and describing that the offset is added to a reconstructed chroma block associated with the reconstructed luma block).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Du teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and claim 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block comprises: decoding the encoded bit stream to determine a strength level associated with the offset; and adding the offset to the reconstructed chroma block at the strength level (e.g. pars. 193 and 217: describing that the system determines a weight associated with the offset from the bitstream and adds the offset to the reconstructed chroma block based on the determined weight, wherein the weight is the equivalent of the strength level).
Turning to claims 4 and 15, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 , and claims 12 and 14, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the strength level is a positive integer (e.g. par. 217: describing that the weight is greater than zero, reasonably suggesting that the strength level is positive).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 , and claims 12 and 14, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein an index is signaled in coding parameters to indicate a strength level associated with a filter block (e.g. par. 217: describing that the offset weight is signaled in the coding parameters for the filtering block).
Turning to claims 7 and 18, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the offset is determined: in parallel to a loop restoration unit, in parallel to a constraint directional enhancement filter, after the loop restoration unit is applied to the reconstructed luma block, or after the constraint directional enhancement filter is applied to the reconstructed luma block (e.g. Figs. 24 and 25, and pars. 206, 207, and 224: describing that the offset is determined in parallel to or after a loop restoration unit or in parallel to or after a constraint directional enhancement filter).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
determining, based on a flag, whether the directional cross component filter is enabled for a video sequence or a video frame (e.g. par. 216: describing that the system determines, based on an enable flag, whether joint component filter is enabled for a video sequence (enabling flag signaled in the sequence parameter set) or a video frame (picture parameter set).
Turning to claims 10 and 21, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and claims 12 and 21, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video sequence header or a video frame header (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter flag is signaled in the sequence parameter set or the picture parameter set, wherein the sequence parameter set is the equivalent of the video sequence header, and wherein the picture parameter set is the equivalent of the video frame header).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 17  is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 5 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Chen et al., “An Overview of core coding Tools in the AV1 Video Codec,” 2018 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), San Francisco, CA, 2018, pp. 41 – 45 (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 and 5, and claims 12 and 14 and 16, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block.
Chen, however, teaches a video decoding method and apparatus:
wherein the filter block is a 64x64 block (e.g. section 4: describing that the filter block is a 64x64 block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Chen in order for the filter block to be a 64x64 block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 8 and 19, respectively above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2021/0368169)(hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, and claims 12 and 19, respectively, as discussed above. Du further teaches:
determining the directional cross component filter is enabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a first value (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter is enabled if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream is “on”, wherein the JCF filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter, and wherein the flag being “on” is the equivalent of the flag having a first value); and
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream and has a second value (e.g. par. 216: describing that the JCF filter is enabled if the flag is signaled in the encoded bit stream is “off”, wherein the JCF filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter, and wherein the flag being “off” is the equivalent of the flag having a second value).
Du does not explicitly teach:
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream.
Hu, however, teaches a video decoding method and video decoding apparatus:
determining the directional cross component filter is disabled, if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream (e.g. par. 168: describing that the system determines the cross component filter to be disabled if the flag is not signaled in the bitstream, wherein the cross component filter is the equivalent of the directional cross component filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Hu in order to determine the directional cross component filter is disable if the flag is not signaled in the encoded bit stream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification reduces processing time and increase coding efficiency (Hu, e.g. par. 7: describing the desire to reduce processing time and to increase coding efficiency).
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 2021/0266604) (hereinafter Du) as applied to claims 10 and 21, respectively above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0264106) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Du teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 10, and claims 12, 19, and 21, respectively, as discussed above. Du does not explicitly teach:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if: a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component.
Zhang, however, teaches a video decoding method and video decoding apparatus:
wherein the flag is signaled in a video frame header if: a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component (e.g. claim 1: describing that the system signals the cross component filter enabled flag if the associated loop filter is enabled for a video sequence, the video sequence including a chroma component, wherein the associated loop filter is the equivalent of the constraint directional enhancement filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Du by adding the teachings of Zhang in order to signal the flag if a constraint directional enhancement filter is enabled for a video sequence associated with the video frame header, and the video sequence comprises a chroma component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20210266604A1: Claims:
A method for video decoding, comprising: generating first reconstructed samples of a block; applying a filter to multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine offsets to be applied to one or more color components; and generating second reconstructed samples of the block based on the offsets for the one or more color components and the first reconstructed samples of the block.
generating first reconstructed samples of a block;
applying a filter to multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine offsets to be applied to one or more color components; and
generating second reconstructed samples of the block based on the offsets for the one or more color components and the first reconstructed samples of the block.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: applying the filter to three color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine three offset signals respectively for the three color components.
applying the filter to three color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine three offset signals respectively for the three color components.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: applying the filter to three color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine an offset to be applied to each of the three color components.
applying the filter to three color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine an offset to be applied to each of the three color components.
The method of claim 1 , wherein at least one of the multiple color components is different from the one or more color components.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising at least one of: applying the filter with different filtering shapes to different color components in the multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples; and applying the filter with different filtering sizes to different color components in the multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples.
applying the filter with different filtering shapes to different color components in the multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples; and
applying the filter with different filtering sizes to different color components in the multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: combining the first reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
combining the first reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
The method of claim 6 , wherein the first reconstructed samples are generated by at least one of: a processing module prior to a deblocking filter; a deblocking filter; a constrained directional enhanced filter; and a loop restoration filter.
a processing module prior to a deblocking filter;
a deblocking filter;
a constrained directional enhanced filter; and
a loop restoration filter.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: generating intermediate reconstructed samples based on the first reconstructed samples; and combining the intermediate reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
generating intermediate reconstructed samples based on the first reconstructed samples; and
combining the intermediate reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
The method of claim 8 , wherein the intermediate reconstructed samples are generated by at least one of: a deblocking filter; a constrained directional enhanced filter; and a loop restoration filter.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: determining the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets based on information in a coded video bitstream.
determining the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets based on information in a coded video bitstream.
The method of claim 10 , further comprising at least one of: decoding an enabling flag that indicates the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets from the coded video bitstream; and decoding weighting factors that is indicative of the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets from the coded video bitstream.
decoding an enabling flag that indicates the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets from the coded video bitstream; and
decoding weighting factors that is indicative of the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets from the coded video bitstream.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: deriving an enabling flag that indicates the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets.
deriving an enabling flag that indicates the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets.
The method of claim 12 , further comprising: deriving the enabling flag based on a smoothness of the first reconstructed samples in each color component within the block.
deriving the enabling flag based on a smoothness of the first reconstructed samples in each color component within the block.
The method of claim 13 , wherein the smoothness is calculated by at least one of: an absolute difference between a maximum pixel value and a minimum pixel value; a variance of pixel values within the block; and a range of gradient values within the block.
an absolute difference between a maximum pixel value and a minimum pixel value;
a variance of pixel values within the block; and
a range of gradient values within the block.
An apparatus for video processing, comprising: processing circuitry configured to: generate first reconstructed samples of a block; apply a filter to multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine offsets to be applied to one or more color components; and generate second reconstructed samples of the block based on the offsets to the one or more color components and the first reconstructed samples of the block.
processing circuitry configured to: generate first reconstructed samples of a block; apply a filter to multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine offsets to be applied to one or more color components; and generate second reconstructed samples of the block based on the offsets to the one or more color components and the first reconstructed samples of the block.
generate first reconstructed samples of a block;
apply a filter to multiple color components of the first reconstructed samples of the block to determine offsets to be applied to one or more color components; and
generate second reconstructed samples of the block based on the offsets to the one or more color components and the first reconstructed samples of the block.
The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: combine the first reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
combine the first reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
The apparatus of claim 16 , wherein the first reconstructed samples are generated by at least one of: a processing module prior to a deblocking filter; a deblocking filter; a constrained directional enhanced filter; and a loop restoration filter.
The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: generate intermediate reconstructed samples based on the first reconstructed samples; and combine the intermediate reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
generate intermediate reconstructed samples based on the first reconstructed samples; and
combine the intermediate reconstructed samples with the offsets for the one or more color components to generate the second reconstructed samples.
The apparatus of claim 18 , wherein the intermediate reconstructed samples are generated by at least one of: a deblocking filter; a constrained directional enhanced filter; and a loop restoration filter.
The apparatus of claim 15 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to; determine the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets based on an enabling flag.
determine the multiple color components to apply the filter and the one or more color components for applying the offsets based on an enabling flag.
Ref US20210368169A1: Claims:
A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: decoding, via a first syntax level of a coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream; decoding, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled; responsive to the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, decoding, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and applying, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
decoding, via a first syntax level of a coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream;
decoding, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled;
responsive to the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, decoding, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and
applying, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the first syntax level comprises a picture parameter set (PPS).
The method of claim 2 , wherein the second syntax level comprises a picture header (PH).
The method of claim 3 , wherein decoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises: selectively decoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
selectively decoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
The method of claim 4 , wherein one or more of: the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_dbf_info_in_ph_flag syntax element, the second deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_deblocking_filter_override_enabled_flag syntax element, and/or the one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information comprise one or more of ph_deblocking_filter_override_flag, ph_deblocking_filter_disabled_flag, ph_luma_beta_offset_div2, ph_luma_tc_offset_div2, ph_cb_beta_offset_div2, ph_cb_tc_offset_div2, ph_cr_beta_offset_div2, and ph_cr_tc_offset_div2.
the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_dbf_info_in_ph_flag syntax element,
the second deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_deblocking_filter_override_enabled_flag syntax element, and/or
the one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information comprise one or more of ph_deblocking_filter_override_flag, ph_deblocking_filter_disabled_flag, ph_luma_beta_offset_div2, ph_luma_tc_offset_div2, ph_cb_beta_offset_div2, ph_cb_tc_offset_div2, ph_cr_beta_offset_div2, and ph_cr_tc_offset_div2.
A method of encoding video data, the method comprising: encoding, via a first syntax level of a coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream; encoding, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled; based on the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, encoding, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and applying, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
encoding, via a first syntax level of a coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream;
encoding, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled;
based on the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, encoding, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and
The method of claim 6 , wherein the first syntax level comprises a picture parameter set (PPS).
The method of claim 7 , wherein the second syntax level comprises a picture header (PH).
The method of claim 8 , wherein encoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises: selectively encoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
selectively encoding the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
The method of claim 9 , wherein one or more of: the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_dbf_info_in_ph_flag syntax element, the second deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_deblocking_filter_override_enabled_flag syntax element, and/or the one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information comprise one or more of ph_deblocking_filter_override_flag, ph_deblocking_filter_disabled_flag, ph_luma_beta_offset_div2, ph_luma_tc_offset_div2, ph_cb_beta_offset_div2, ph_cb_tc_offset_div2, ph_cr_beta_offset_div2, and ph_cr_tc_offset_div2.
A device for decoding video data, the device comprising: a memory configured to store at least a portion of a coded video bitstream: one or more processors implemented in circuitry and configured to: decode, via a first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream; decode, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled; responsive to the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, decode, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and apply, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
a memory configured to store at least a portion of a coded video bitstream:
one or more processors implemented in circuitry and configured to: decode, via a first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream; decode, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled; responsive to the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, decode, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and apply, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
decode, via a first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a first deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking filter information is present in a second syntax level of the bitstream;
decode, via the first syntax level of the coded video bitstream, a second deblocking filter control syntax element with a value that specifies whether deblocking override is enabled;
responsive to the first deblocking filter control syntax element specifying that the deblocking filter information is present in the second syntax level of the bitstream and regardless of the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element, decode, via the second syntax level, one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information; and
apply, based on the deblocking filter information, a deblocking filter to a block of the video data.
The device of claim 11 , wherein the first syntax level comprises a picture parameter set (PPS).
The device of claim 12 , wherein the second syntax level comprises a picture header (PH).
The device of claim 13 , wherein, to decode the first deblocking filter control syntax element, the one or more processors are configured to: selectively decode the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
selectively decode the first deblocking filter control syntax element based on the value of the second deblocking filter control syntax element.
The device of claim 14 , wherein one or more of: the first deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_dbf_info_in_ph_flag syntax element, the second deblocking filter control syntax element comprises a pps_deblocking_filter_override_enabled_flag syntax element, and/or the one or more syntax elements that specify deblocking filter information comprise one or more of ph_deblocking_filter_override_flag, ph_deblocking_filter_disabled_flag, ph_luma_beta_offset_div2, ph_luma_tc_offset_div2, ph_cb_beta_offset_div2, ph_cb_tc_offset_div2, ph_cr_beta_offset_div2, and ph_cr_tc_offset_div2.
A device for encoding video data, the device comprising: a memory configured to store at least a portion of a coded video bitstream: one or more processors implemented in circuitr
[Truncated to input limit]