DETAILED 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 Objections
The Claims are objected to under 37 CFR 41.106(a) because of the following informalities:
Amended Claims 1-4 are in poor quality which renders them illegible to document processing. In papers, including affidavits, created for the proceeding: (i) Markings must be in black ink or must otherwise provide an equivalently permanent, dark, high-contrast image on the paper. The quality of printing must be equivalent to the quality produced by a laser printer. Either a proportional or monospaced font may be used, but the proportional font must be 12-point or larger and a monospaced font must not contain more than 4 characters per centimeter (10 characters per inch). Case names must be underlined or italicized.
Applicant is reminded to submit its actions in clear dark print; future submissions of documents using colored text, such as tracked changes, may be denied particularly where such submission is rendered illegible by the document processing.
Examiner suggests turning off tracked changes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has reverted independent Claims 1 and 2 to the previously presented versions of the claims, and the reasons for rejection stated below resembled previously provided reasons for rejection of these claims.
Applicant argues: “The present amendments clarify that the first and second contexts differ and are selected based on the MRL index value (zero vs. non-zero) which strengthens the distinction from AAPA's generic CABAC usage.”
Examiner notes (a) that this feature appears to apply to Claims 3-4 but not Claims 1-2, and (b) this feature appears to be fundamentally built into the VVC standards in both versions VTM 5.0 and VTM 6.0. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “A further distinction in the present claims is that the second CABAC context is used to parse the most probable mode flag and is selected based on the multiple reference line index being non-zero; determining an intra coding mode by parsing the most probable mode flag using a second CABAC context that is based on the multiple reference line index when said multiple reference line index is determined to be non-zero.”
Examiner notes that this feature appears to have been available in VVC VTM 5.0, as noted in the reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Additionally, the bypass encoding of the present claims is performed in the context of Multiple Reference Lines (MRL) and not general decoding. All bins of the MPM candidate index are bypass decoded only when the MRL index is non-zero, which distinguishes it from general CABAC practices.”
Examiner notes that this feature appears to be part of the VVC standards as noted in the reasons for rejection below.
“The AAPA reference constrains modes to MPM when MRL is non-zero, lacking the dual-context approach and non-MPM usage with farther lines.”
Examiner notes that this does not address the reasons for rejection over the previous VVC standard or provide any evidence of unexpected results in view of the prior art. Liu indicates that the claimed features have been specifically considered with respect to VVC VTM 5.0. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “However, the invention decodes the MPM flag consistently (regardless of MRL index) using context-switching (first vs. second CABAC context), unlike the references, where MPM constraints apply when MRL is non-zero (AAP A, p. 3 ). This simplifies parsing and reduces conditional complexity.”
Examiner notes that this appears to be a feature of VVC VTM 5.0 which predates the VVC VTM 6.0 which Applicant admits to be prior art. Applicant thinks this feature is beneficial, Liu thinks it is unnecessary, but regardless of who is right, the feature was known in the art and codified in a major standard before the earliest priority date. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Response to Amendment
Objection to Figures 1-2 and 4-5 have been previously withdrawn in view of the amendments in which these drawings are designated by a legend --Prior Art-- .
Examiner has previously withdrawn the rejection of Claims 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amendments that read “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions …”
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14, 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in view of the amendments.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Changes to the dimensions of prior art structures are considered obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular changes would produce non-obvious results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
“When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. In describing an invention, Applicant must inevitably reference that which is known in the art as the basis for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his own invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int ’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP 2129.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) as described in the Specification
In view of Hongbin Liu, Li Zhang, Kai Zhang, Na Zhang, Jizheng Xu, Yue Wang “Non-CE3: Cleanup for ISP flag and M.RL index signalling,” 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3-12, July 2019, JVET-00197, also cited in an IDS (“Liu”),
and in view of US 20190394483 to Zhou (“Zhou”).
Note that the features described in the AAPA refer to the VVC standard and are corroborated by Benjamin Bross, Jianle Chen, Shan Liu, “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6),” 15th Meeting: Goilienlmrg, SE, 3--12 July 2019, JVET-O2001-vE, also cited in an IDS (“Bross”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method, comprising:
parsing a video bitstream to determine whether multiple reference line index is non-zero; (“Both MPM and MRL [multiple reference line intra coding] are video coding tools in the WC (Versatile Video Coding or H.266) standard” AAPA, Specification, Page 1, second paragraph. “In VTM 6.0, when the multiRefldx of any CU is non-zero, its prediction mode is constrained to be a member of the Most Probable Modes (MPM) list.” AAPA, Specification, Page 3, second to last paragraph.)
decoding (“To achieve high compression efficiency, image and video coding schemes … To reconstruct the video, the compressed data are decoded by inverse processes” AAPA, Specification, Page 1, second paragraph.
AAPA does not explicitly teach the decoder function and structure that performs this function but it is implied by the statement above.
Zhou provides an explicit teaching of the VVC decoder in Zhou, Paragraphs 52 and 93 in the context of coding video and using the VVC coding standard.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of VVC in AAPA and Bross to implement it using as taught in Zhou, in order to implement the VVC standard on a commercial computing system. Zhou, Paragraphs 52 and 93.)
a most probable mode flag using a first context based on said determination of said multiple reference line index being non-zero (In the embodiment where the claim changes the preferred polarity of the prior art flag from one to zero: AAPA teaches “In VTM 6.0, when the multiRefldx of any CU is non-zero, its prediction mode is constrained to be a member of the Most Probable Modes (MPM) list. As a consequence of this, the mpmFlag, which signals if the prediction mode belongs to the MPM list or not, is not encoded.” AAPA, Specification, Page 3, second to last paragraph. Although the claim chooses the indication as flag=0 rather than flag=1, selection of the flag polarity does not patentably distinguish over the functionality which is performed identically in the prior art.
Cumulatively, where the claim can be construed to code mpmFlag under the MRL coding, Liu teaches that the joint coding of both MPM flag and MRL was known and enabled in the previous standard VTM-5.0 (i.e. mpmFlag is coded even if multiRefldx is non-zero): “the on/off control flag of Intra Subblock Partitioning and the reference line index are still signalled.” Liu considered this alternative “unnecessary” at that time. Liu, Page 1, Abstract.
Thus, the claimed alternative was known in the art before the earliest priority date of this Application. The fact that the inventor has recognized an advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of AAPA to decode and mpmFlag is coded even if multiRefldx is non-zero as taught in Liu, in order to apply a feature known in the previous VTM-5.0 standard, in order to allow flexibility of signaling additional modes when the MPM is used (achieved at a possible cost to coding efficiency). Liu, Page 1, Abstract.
Finally, in reviewing the present application and the applicable standards, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
and using a using a second CABAC context, different from the first CABAC context,” (AAPA teaches “in VTM 6.0. In the case when the multiRefldx is zero, the mpmFlag is encoded as in VTM 6.0 depending on the value of the intra prediction mode. If the prediction mode belongs to the MPM list, the mpmFlag is set as 1, else it is set as 0,” AAPA, Specification, Page 3, last paragraph.
Although the claim chooses the indication as flag=0 rather than flag=1, selection of the flag polarity does not patentably distinguish over the functionality which is performed identically in the prior art.)
when the multiple reference line index is non-zero, wherein the second CABAC context is used to parse the most probable mode flag and is selected based on the multiple reference line index being non-zero (See treatment of these conditions above.)
determining an intra coding mode by parsing the most probable mode flag using a second CABAC context that is based on the multiple reference line index when said multiple reference line index is determined to be non-zero to determine an intra coding mode, … wherein a predetermined plurality of prediction modes are available as possible mode candidates; and (AAPA teaches “in VTM 6.0. In the case when the multiRefldx is zero, the mpmFlag is encoded as in VTM 6.0 depending on the value of the intra prediction mode. If the prediction mode belongs to the MPM list, the mpmFlag is set as 1, else it is set as 0, … With this change, the mpmFflag for a CU is always encoded,” thus the MPM flag is pared and the most probable modes are available as mode candidates. See AAPA, Specification, Page 3, last paragraph.
Although the claim chooses the indication as flag=0 rather than flag=1, selection of the flag polarity does not patentably distinguish over the functionality which is performed identically in the prior art.)
… wherein an index of candidate most probable modes are is binary decoded, and (“the candidate index in the set of remaining 6 modes is truncated-binary encoded with 5 or 6 bits” See AAPA, Specification, Page 5, last paragraph and Table 2 and Page 6, Table 3.)
all bins are of said index are bypass decoded by using CABAC, and (“the remaining bins are bypass-encoded by CABAC” in AAPA, Specification, Page 5 and Table 2 and similarly “All 4 bins of the binarization are bypass encoded by CABAC” in AAPA, Specification, Page 6, first paragraph and Table 3, and thus they must be bypass decoded by CABAC. Note that examples in Specification Fig 3 and Page 6, Paragraph 2 (cited in support of this amendment) also use the bypass encoding according to Table 3.)
decoding said video bitstream on said intra coding mode, wherein non-MPM modes are used with reference lines that are two lines away from a current coding unit. (“To achieve high compression efficiency, image and video coding schemes … To reconstruct the video, the compressed data are decoded by inverse processes” that parse the flags and indicators encoded by the VVC above. See AAPA, Specification, Page 1, second paragraph. Also note the explicit teaching of the VVC decoder in Zhou, Paragraphs 52 and 93. See statement of motivation above.)
Claim 2, “An apparatus, comprising: a processor, configured to: parse a video bitstream” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 and because prior art teaches: “The one or more processing devices execute computer instructions stored in the data store 114” Zhou, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.
Claim 3, “A method, comprising: encoding a flag” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 10 and because prior art teaches:
“encoding” (Prior art teaches the same data properties apply to encoding a video (as in this claim) and decoding a video (as in Claim 1). See Zhou, Paragraph 2 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
“encode an intra coding mode index representative of an intra coding mode used using a first CABAC context when the multiple reference line index is zero, and using a second CABAC context, different from the first CABAC context, when the multiple reference line index is non-zero, wherein the second CABAC context is selected based on the multiple reference line index being non-zero;” (Prior art teaches the second CABAC context “In VTM 6.0, when the multiRefldx of any CU is non-zero, its prediction mode is constrained to be a member of the Most Probable Modes (MPM) list. As a consequence of this, the mpmFlag, which signals if the prediction mode belongs to the MPM list or not, is not encoded.” AAPA, Specification, Page 3, second to last paragraph. Prior art further teaches another CABAC context: “The valid values of multiRefldx are 0, 1, and 3, … when multiRefldx is non-zero, the prediction mode is encoded as shown in Table 3. All 4 bins of the binarization are bypass encoded by CABAC.” AAPA, Specification, Page 6, first paragraph.)
Claim 4, “An apparatus, comprising: a processor, configured to: encode” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 3, and because prior art teaches: “The one or more processing devices execute computer instructions stored in the data store 114” Zhou, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 3, wherein the second CABAC context is initialized with a probability model distinct from a probability model of the first CABA context. (Where the MPM candidate index is encoded in the second CABAC context, “the first bin of the MPM candidate index binarization, as shown in Table 2, is context-encoded [with the high probability model MPM[0] ] but the remaining bins are bypass-encoded by CABAC.” AAPA, Specification, Page 5. This mode is not used by (and thus distinct from) the first CABAC context where MPM candidate index is not encoded.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 3, wherein the five prediction modes are derived from a list constructed based on the multiple reference line index. (“Both MPM and MRL [multiple reference line intra coding] are video coding tools in the WC (Versatile Video Coding or H.266) standard” AAPA, Specification, Page 1, second paragraph. “In VTM 6.0, when the multiRefldx of any CU is non-zero, its prediction mode is constrained to be a member of the Most Probable Modes (MPM) list.” AAPA, Specification, Page 3, second to last paragraph. For example, “when multiRefldx is non-zero, only five prediction modes are available as possible candidates” See AAPA, Specification, Page 5, last paragraph and Table 2 and Page 6, Table 3.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, wherein bins of said index are bypass encoded using CABAC.” (“the remaining bins are bypass-encoded by CABAC” AAPA, Specification, Page 5.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein bins of said index are bypass decoded using CABAC.” (“the remaining bins are bypass-encoded by CABAC” AAPA, Specification, Page 5. See treatment of decoding in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 1, wherein a CABAC probability parameter is initialized with a high probability model.” (“Similarly, the first bin of the MPM candidate index binarization, as shown in Table 2, is context-encoded [with the high probability model MPM[0] ] but the remaining bins are bypass-encoded by CABAC.” AAPA, Specification, Page 5. See treatment of decoding in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 9, wherein said most probable mode flag is set to a value of one.” (See reasons for rejection of selecting flag value in Claim 5. Also note “if the prediction mode of the current block is equal to one of the six MPM modes, this is indicated by setting the mpmFlag with value 1” AAPA, Specification, Page 5. See treatment of decoding in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein said most probable mode flag is decoded regardless of a value of a multiple reference line intra coding index.” (“In current VVC, Intra Subblock Partitioning and multiple Reference Line are disallowed for the non-Most Probable modes. However, the on/off control t1ag of Intra Subblock Partitioning and the reference line index are still signalled for such intra prediction methods” AAPA, Abstract, Page 1. See treatment of decoding in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 12: “A device comprising: an apparatus according to Claim 2; 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 “an antenna 116” in Zhou, Paragraph 20, see “using block-size dependent filter selection for motion compensation, and/or using shorter interpolation filters for small blocks, which may largely reduce the memory bandwidth usage with minimum quality impact” Zhou, Paragraph 24, “displaying video content on a display 124,” Zhou, Paragraph 28. See statement of motivation.)
Regarding Claim 13: “A non-transitory computer readable medium containing data content generated according to the method of claim 3” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3, and because prior art teaches “The data store 114 may further store one or more programs, for example, video and/or audio streams” Zhou, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation.)
Regarding Claim 14: “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the compute to carry out the method of Claim 1,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches “The data store 114 may store the computer instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Zhou, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation.)
Regarding Claim 15: “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of Claim 3,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3, and because prior art teaches “The data store 114 may store the computer instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Zhou, Paragraph 23. See statement of motivation.)
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5 in view of the Claim 4 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 6 in view of the Claim 4 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 7-8 in view of the Claim 4 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 7-8 in view of the Claim 2 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 9 in view of the Claim 2 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hongbin Liu, Li Zhang, Kai Zhang, Na Zhang, Jizheng Xu, Yue Wang “Non-CE3: Cleanup for ISP flag and M.RL index signalling,” 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3-12, July 2019, JVET-00197, also cited in an IDS (“Liu”).
Liu was particularly cited in the previous Office Actions to teach: Where AAPA is directed to VTM 6.0 publication, Liu indicates that, in VTM-5.0, MPM and MRL were both signaled (not constrained) but Liu viewed that feature as inefficient (and undesirable for that reason), indicating that both the AAPA and the claimed version of signaling were known, and there were known benefits and drawback to each allowing and disallowing signaling of the non-MPM modes when multiple reference layers are indicated. Thus, the constraint of the MPM and MRL modes in VTM-6.0 (addressed by the Specification) was elective based on known alternatives, which is evidence of obviousness. Applicant’s subjective opinion that one alternative is better is not evidence that Applicant is the first to invent it.
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 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483