DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150043637 A1 (hereinafter Morigami)
US 20120243604 A1 (hereinafter Lu)
Sullivan et. al. “New Profiles for Professional Applications", MPEG Meeting; Jan 15-19, 2007; Marrakech; (Motion Picture Expert Group of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) no. N8747, 14 March 2007
US 20190208205 A1 (hereinafter Tourapis)
US 20220053207 A1 (teaches separate quantization matrix for separate color components, see para 102)
US 20060177143 A1 (teaches separate quantization matrix for separate color components, see para 3 & 6)
Claim Objections (Informalities in the Claim)
Claims 1-4, 6 , 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “including syntax that indicates a current color component in a bitstream of the encoded video for indicating a quantization matrix used for the indicated color component of the video block and for its encoding, wherein said syntax is”. Based on the independent claim as well as dependent claim, such as claim 6, the proper interpretation of the syntax here is “a syntax element”. Other claims have similar issues. Claim 15 recites “non-transitory computer program product”, it should be amended to “non-transitory computer readable medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to claim 1 a syntax (according to claim 6 the syntax is colour_plane_id) indicates 1) current color component 2) a quantization matrix for the indicated color component 3) three separately processed color components Y,U & V and 4) that Y, U, V all have the same size. Examiner could not find any single syntax that indicates all these four conditions in the specification. Claim 2-4 have similar issues. Dependent claims inherit the defficiency.
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 6 & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and other pending rejections and objections are overcome.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morigami in view of Tourapis.
Regarding Claims 1: Morigami teaches A method, comprising:
encoding a video block by encoding color components of the video block separately using separate quantization matrices [(para 77, 153, and Fig 4, separate quantization/scaling matrices are used for different color component)] ; and
including syntax that indicates a current color component in a bitstream of the encoded video for indicating a quantization matrix used for the indicated color component of the video block and for its encoding [(value of chroma_format_idc define the matrixID {Fig.9 unit 211}; the matrixID indicate quantization matrix for different color components {Fig.4, para 153})] , wherein said syntax is also used to indicate that the video block is comprised of three-color components separately processed but having a same size as luma components [(Fig.2 “chroma_format_idc” =3 means 4:4:4; i.e. all three-color components have same size)]
Therefore, the difference is Morigami teaches the chrominance components as Cb and Cr instead of U & V
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Tourapis teaches that such components are commonplace color components [(para 5)],
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities, because these are simply alternate ways to represent chroma components.
Morigami additionally teaches with regards to claim 3. A method, comprising: parsing a bitstream for syntax indicative of a quantization matrix used for a component of a video block and, decoding the component of the video block using a quantization matrix based on said syntax [(see analysis of claim 1 para 18)] .
Regarding Claims 2 & 4, 13-15: see analysis of claims 1 & 3 and capable apparatus Taught by Tourapis [(Figs. 18-20 & para 137; it should be noted that claims 13 & 14 claimed non-functional data, therefore any non-transitory computer readable medium storing coded data would reads on it, do not need to be specific coding method )]
Morigami additionally teaches with regards to claims 7, 18. The method of claim 1, wherein separate color plane mode is used. [(para 81, Fig.4)]
Morigami additionally teaches with regards to claims 8, 19. The method of claim 1, wherein each component of the video block uses separate quantization matrices [ Fig.4, separate matrixID/matrix)].
Trouapis additionally teaches with regards to claim 12. A device comprising: an apparatus according to claim 4: and at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including the video block, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block, and (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of a video block. [(see analysis of claim 1 & para 127 of Trouapis)] :
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morigami in view of Tourapis in view of Lu
Regarding Claim 11: Morigami in view of Tourapis does not explicitly show wherein two components share a quantization matrix
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lu teaches wherein two components share a quantization matrix [(para 92)].
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426