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 Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the last “not receiving” step and “determining step” of claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner “a video bitstream”, “a hierarchical structure”, “a first syntax element” “a first level” and “a palette mode” should all be “the video bitstream”, “the hierarchical structure”, “the first syntax element” “the first level” and “the palette mode” as the same claim terms above are being referred to and they are not new terms being introduced. The same issue occurs in claims 9 and 15 (in the last “in response to step”). As currently written, the second instance of “a video bitstream”, “a hierarchical structure”, “a first syntax element” “a first level” and “a palette mode” can be a completely new and unrelated video bitstream, hierarchical structure, first syntax, first level and palette mode.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states that for method claims, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
After further consideration and consultation with a Quality Assurance Specialist, claims 1 and 15 have been deemed to include contingent limitations as currently written. As a result, as currently written, only one of the two block size threshold contingent limitations regarding receiving “a first syntax” need to be met for method claims 1 and 15.
The Examiner suggests either 1) changing the claim type to an apparatus or 2) removing the “determining whether” step and using language such as “determining that” for both contingent limitations in the method claims. The key is to transform the precedent condition into positively recited event(s). These options were communicated to the Applicant on 4/10/26 in an attempt to allow the application by Examiner’s Amendment for compact prosecution purposes, however, the Applicant did not agree to the Examiner’s proposed amendments.
The Applicant argued that the “determining that” limitation would be indefinite as the both determinations in the claim cannot be performed at the same time. The Examiner respectfully disagreed, explaining that a method is not for a single point in time and as such, both determinations can happen at different points in time.
No agreement was reached.
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 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) 1-2, 15, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (U.S. 2020/0162733), hereinafter Sun in view of Chang et al. (U.S. 2016/03260205), hereinafter Chang. Sun was cited in the PTO-892 dated 1/29/24. Chang was cited in the PTO-892 dated 6/16/25.
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a method of decoding video data and an electronic apparatus comprising:
determining whether a block size of a coding unit (CU) is larger than a predefined threshold (Sun Cover Page);
in response to the determination that the block size of the CU is larger than the predefined threshold (Sun [0059], [0080] and Cover Page),
receiving, from a video bitstream having a hierarchical structure, a first syntax element associated with a first level of the hierarchical structure (Sun [0028], [0059], [0080] and [0002]), and
determining that the first syntax element indicates that a palette mode is applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the video bitstream, and reconstructing, from the video bitstream, pixel values of at least one of the one or more CUs according to a corresponding palette table (Sun [0028], [0059], [0080], [0002] and Cover Page); and
in response to the determination that the block size of the CU is not larger than the predefined threshold (see Claim Interpretation section above):
not receiving from a video bitstream having a hierarchical structure, a first syntax element associated with a first level of the hierarchical structure (see Claim Interpretation section above), and
determining that a palette mode is not applied (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined threshold is no less than 32 or larger than 16.
However Chang teaches, wherein the predefined threshold is no less than 32 or larger than 16 (Chang [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Sun with the missing limitations as taught by Chang to perform certain actions based on multiple CU sizes (Chang [0075]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of coding data more efficiently as a result of using a CU size limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
reconstructing from the video bitstream, in accordance with a determination that the first syntax element indicates that the palette mode is disabled for the one or more CUs, the pixel values of any of the one or more CUs according to a non-palette scheme (Sun [0028], [0080] and Cover Page).
Regarding claim 15, Sun in view of Chang teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, comprising:
generating a bitstream by performing an encoding method (Sun [0002] and Chang fig. 2); and
transmitting the bitstream (Sun [0002] and Chang fig. 2),
wherein the encoding method comprises:
determining whether a block size of a coding unit (CU) is larger than a predefined threshold (Sun Cover Page);
in response to the determination that the block size of the CU is larger than the predefined threshold (Sun [0059], [0080] and Cover Page),
generating, for inclusion into the bitstream having a hierarchical structure, a first syntax element associated with a first level of the hierarchical structure, wherein the first syntax element indicates that a palette mode is applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the bitstream (Sun [0028], [0059], [0080] and [0002]); and
encoding the CU and the first syntax element to generate the bitstream (Sun [0002] and Chang [0030], [0043]-[044] and fig. 2), and
in response to the determination that the block size of the CU is not larger than the predefined threshold (see Claim Interpretation section above), not signaling, in the bitstream having a hierarchical structure, a first syntax element associated with a first level of the hierarchical structure (see Claim Interpretation section above),
wherein the predefined threshold is no less than 32 or larger than 16 (Sun Cover Page and Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32 (Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32 (Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 23.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pu et al. (U.S. 2015/0365695), hereinafter Pu.
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first syntax element is in one of a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a tile group header, and a slice header.
However, Pu teaches wherein the first syntax element is in one of a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a tile group header, and a slice header (Pu [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Sun in view of Chang with the missing limitations as taught by Pu to compress a video signal to transmit, receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Pu [0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of coding data more efficiently.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seregin et al. (U.S. 2016/0234494), hereinafter Seregin.
Regarding claim 4, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the corresponding palette table is shared by the one or more CUs.
However, Seregin teaches, wherein the corresponding palette table is shared by the one or more CUs (Seregin [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Sun in view of Chang with the missing limitations as taught by Seregin to receive, encode, decode, and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Seregin [0003] and [0020]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of coding data more efficiently.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (“CE8-related: Compound Palette Mode”, JVET-N0259-v1, 19-27 March 2019), hereinafter Zhu. Zhu was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/26/21. The copy used for citations by the Examiner was attached as NPL dated 8/25/23.
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Chang teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first syntax element comprises a one-bit flag.
However, Zhu teaches, wherein the first syntax element comprises a one-bit flag (Zhu p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Sun in view of Chang with the missing limitations as taught by Zhu to quickly indicate whether a palette mode is applied to the coding devices used in video coding (Zhu p. 6).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of coding data more efficiently as a result of using a one bit flag.
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Chang and Zhu the method of claim 15, wherein the first syntax element comprises a one-bit flag (see claims 8 and 15).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 8 applies to the missing limitations of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14 and 22 are allowed pending fixes to the claim objections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot regarding claims 1 and 9 because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. Sun in view of Chang. Further, see Claim Interpretation section above and additional pertinent prior art section of Pu found below.
Regarding Sun, Sun discloses applying or not applying a palette mode based on similar thresholds (Sun [0059] and Cover Page). Further, Sun teaches that in a palette mode, a flag indicating palette mode is used is transmitted (Sun [0028]). Moreover, Sun teaches that when performing the operations described, “The order in which the operations are described is not intended to be construed as a limitation, and any number of the described operations can be combined in any order and/or in parallel to implement the processes.” (Sun [0080]). Lastly, the Applicant admits in previous Remarks dated 1/6/26 that Sun at least signals a flag indicating a palette mode is used (p. 15). Therefore, Sun teaches the argued threshold limitations of claim 1 and 15 as currently amended based on the citations and Claim Interpretation section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sun et al. (“CE8-related: Palette Mode Simplification”, JVET-N0405-v2, 19-27 March 2019) discloses a decoder constraint on palette size of a CU depending on the CU size (p. 2, bullet (2)). Sun was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/26/21.
Ye et al. (U.S. 2019/0281311) teaches applying palette mode when greater than a threshold ([0029]).
Xu et al. (“Description of Core Experiment 8 (CE8): Screen Content Coding Tools”, JVET-M1028-v2, 19-27 March 2019) teaches disabling a palette mode for CUs with a small CU size (i.e. palette mode enabled for sizes larger than a predefined size threshold) (p. 4, bottom, section 3.9). Xu was cited on the Applicant’s IDS dated 6/4/24.
Pu (cited above) further discloses inferring (i.e. not signaling/receiving) palette syntax based on a CU size (Pu [0037]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached on (571)272-7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights