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 § 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) 1-3, 9-10, 15 and 20 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 Pu et al. (U.S. 2015/0365695), hereinafter Pu.
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a method of decoding video data and an electronic apparatus comprising:
determining that a block size of a coding unit (“CU”) is not larger than a predefined threshold (Sun Cover Page):
a first syntax element associated with a first level of the hierarchical structure, wherein the first syntax element indicates that a palette mode is not applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the video bitstream (Sun [0028]), and
determining that the palette mode is not applied (Sun Cover Page).
However, Pu teaches not receiving from a video 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 not applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the video bitstream (Pu [0037] and [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 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.
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Pu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
reconstructing from the video bitstream, in accordance with a determination that the palette mode is not applied for the one or more CUs, pixel values of any of the one or more CUs according to a non-palette scheme (Sun [0028], [0080] and Cover Page).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Pu 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 further 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 Pu 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.
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Pu teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Sun [0068]);
memory coupled to the one or more processors (Sun [0068]); and
a plurality of programs stored in the memory that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic apparatus to (Sun [0068]):
determine that a block size of a coding unit ("CU") is not larger than a predefined threshold (Sun Cover Page);
not receive, from a video 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 not applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the video bitstream (Sun [0028] and Pu [0037]/[0035]); and
determine that the palette mode is not applied (Sun Cover Page).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Sun in view of Pu teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 9, wherein the programs, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the electronic apparatus to: reconstruct from the video bitstream, in accordance with a determination that the palette mode is not applied for the one or more CUs, pixel values of any of the one or more CUs according to a non-palette scheme (see claims 2 and 9).
Regarding claim 15, Sun in view of Pu teaches a method for video encoding, comprising:
determining that a block size of a coding unit (“CU”) is not larger than a predefined threshold; and
not signaling, in a video 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 not applied for one or more CUs at or under the first level in the video bitstream (Sun [0028] and Pu [0037]/[0035]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Pu teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising transmitting the video bitstream (Sun [0002] and Pu fig. 2).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 1 applies to the missing limitations of claim 20.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Pu 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 Pu 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 Pu 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 14, Sun in view of Pu and Zhu teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first syntax element comprises a one-bit flag (see claims 8 and 9).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 8 applies to the missing limitations of claim 14.
Claim(s) 4 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Pu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. 2016/03260205), hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 4, Sun in view of Pu teaches the method of claim 1. 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 in view of Pu 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 21, Sun in view of Pu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32 (Chang [0075]).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32.
However, Chang teaches, wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32 (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 in view of Pu 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 22, Sun in view of Pu and Chang teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predefined threshold is equal to 32 (Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 21 apply to the missing limitations of claim 22.
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 claims 1 and 21 apply to the missing limitations of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Sun in view of Pu teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 9, wherein the predefined threshold is no less than 32 or larger than 16 (Sun Cover Page and Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 21 apply to the missing limitations of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Sun in view of Pu teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the predefined threshold is no less than 32 or larger than 16 (Sun Cover Page and Chang [0075]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 21 apply to the missing limitations of claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot regarding claims 1, 9 and 15 because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. Sun in view of Pu.
After further search and consideration of the amended claims, 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]). Pu teaches inferring (i.e. not signaling/receiving) palette syntax based on a CU size (Pu [0037]/[0035]). Therefore, the combination of Sun and Pu teaches the threshold limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 as currently amended based on the citations 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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