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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that Applicant appears to have amended the claims with features gleaned from the VVC standard. These features and the exact flag names are described in Joshi in reference to VVC. Examiner suggests identifying features in the specification that Applicant describes as addressing a particular problem in prior art.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “Joshi does not disclose or suggest the above-noted features of claim 1.”
Examiner notes that these newly amended features are addressed in view of Joshi in the updated reasons for rejection below. The amended features appear to be flags known in VVC.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 does not merely recite that index information is associated with palette coding syntax. Rather, claim 1 requires a particular combination of claim elements including the current block on which the palette coding is performed and the another current block to which palette coding is not applied, and further requires deriving cu_chroma_qp_offset_idx from transform unit syntax for the another current block based on the recited conditions.”
Examiner notes that providing details of how information is derived but not used by the steps of image decoding reads more like an extra solution or a product-by-process recitation rather than limiting the method of image decoding to perform particular steps of image decoding. Examiner suggests clarifying the claims regarding how the derived information is used by the method to decode images.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has submitted Information Disclosure Statements with a number of large documents in a foreign language, documents which are without translation or explanation of relevance to the present claims. Only a cursory consideration of the English portions of those documents has been afforded to this disclosure.
Response to Amendment
Examiner withdraws the rejection of Claims 1, 9, 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
Where prior art recites claimed features combined with additional features, omission of the additional features in the claim does not distinguish it over the prior art reference. Further, an omission of an element and its function is obvious. M.P.E.P. 2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 20160373745 to Joshi (“Joshi”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining image information including information on a chroma quantization parameter offset from a bitstream; (“the one or more syntax elements related to chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data may include a syntax element that indicates whether entries in one or more offset lists are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block …” Joshi, Paragraph 101.)
deriving a value of a chroma quantization parameter offset for a current block based on the information on the chroma quantization parameter offset; … wherein the information on the chroma quantization parameter offset is index information on a chroma quantization parameter offset list, (“the one or more syntax elements related to chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data may include a syntax element that indicates whether entries in one or more offset lists are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block … specifies an index of an entry in each of the one or more offset lists that are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block” Joshi, Paragraph 101.)
deriving a chroma quantization parameter for the current block based on the value of the chroma quantization parameter offset; and (“specifies an index of an entry in each of the one or more offset lists that are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block” Joshi, Paragraph 101.)
generating a reconstructed sample by performing palette coding on the current block based on the chroma quantization parameter, (“The signaled information may be used by video decoder 30 to decode video data.” Joshi, Paragraphs 101, 140. “and decoding the current block of video data based on the palette for the current block of video data and the one or more syntax elements related to delta QP and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data.” Joshi, Paragraph 6.)
wherein, for the current block on which the palette coding is performed, the image information includes palette coding syntax, (First note that the claim is neither limited to generating palette coding syntax in any of the steps nor uses palette coding syntax in any of the method; the claiming that “image information” can be a product of an unclaimed information assembly process does not limit the present claim to performing the process. See Claim Construction section above. Cumulatively, The video signal in Joshi is encoded with “one or more syntax elements to define a palette … one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of entries in the current palette that are explicitly signalled (e.g., num_signalled_ palette_entries), one or more syntax elements [number of entries greater than 0] that indicate a value of a component in a palette entry in the current palette (e.g., palette_entry), one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_ present_flag),” Joshi, Paragraph 31.)
deriving information for a tree type of the current block; (In Joshi, “may partition a coding block of a CU into one [single tree] or more [dual, quad tree] prediction blocks. A prediction block is a rectangular (i.e., square [single or quad] or non-square [dual]) block of samples.” Joshi, Paragraphs 68-69, 72.)
deriving escape related information for whether the current block contains at least one escape coded sample; and (“one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_ present_flag),” with a value of 1 indicating that the scape value is present. Joshi, Paragraph 31.)
deriving information on a number of entries in the chroma quantization parameter offset list, (The video signal in Joshi is encoded with “one or more syntax elements to define a palette … one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of entries in the current palette that are explicitly signalled (e.g., num_signalled_ palette_entries), one or more syntax elements [number of entries greater than 0] that indicate a value of a component in a palette entry in the current palette (e.g., palette_entry), one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_ present_flag),” Joshi, Paragraph 31.)
wherein based on (i) a case that the information for the tree type of the current block is not dual tree luma but dual tree chroma or single tree, (In Joshi, a coding block of a CU can be one of the “coding blocks of chroma samples” and “may partition a coding block of a CU into one [single tree] or more [quad tree] prediction blocks. A prediction block is a rectangular (i.e., square [single or quad] or non-square) block of samples,” which are not dual tree or luma. Joshi, Paragraphs 68-69, 72. Clearly, the method in Joshi operates under the claimed conditions of luma or chroma blocks.)
(ii) a case that a value of the escape related information for whether the current block contains at least one escape coded sample is equal to 1, (“ one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_ present_flag),” with a value of 1 indicating that the scape value is present. Joshi, Paragraph 31.)
and (iii) a case that a value of the information on a number of entries in the chroma quantization parameter offset list is greater than 0, … the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is included in the palette coding syntax, (First note that the claim is neither limited to generating palette coding syntax in any of the steps nor uses palette coding syntax in any of the method; the claiming that “image information” can be a product of an unclaimed information assembly process does not limit the present claim to performing the process. See Claim Construction section above. Cumulatively, Prior Art teaches: “one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of entries in the current palette that are explicitly signalled (e.g., num_signalled_ palette_entries), one or more syntax elements [number of entries greater than 0] that indicate a value of a component in a palette entry in the current palette (e.g., palette_entry), one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_ present_flag),” Joshi, Paragraph 31.)
wherein for the current block on which the palette coding is performed, the chroma quantization parameter is derived based on the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list included in the palette coding syntax, (Note that this claim element does not limit the claim to “deriving” but rather, describes that the product signal “chroma quantization parameter” is derived by a process that is not required to be performed by the claim. See Claim Construction section above. Cumulatively, Prior Art teaches: “the one or more syntax elements related to chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data may include a syntax element that indicates whether entries in one or more offset lists are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block … specifies an index of an entry in each of the one or more offset lists that are added to the luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block” Joshi, Paragraph 101.)
and the reconstructed sample is generated based on the chroma quantization parameter, and” (See the reason for rejection for the step of “generating a reconstructed sample by performing palette coding on the current block based on the chroma quantization parameter,” above in view of Joshi, Paragraphs 101, 140, 6.)
wherein, based on a value of the information on the number of entries in the chroma quantization parameter offset list being equal to 0, the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included in the palette coding syntax and a value of the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is inferred to be 0; and (First note that the claim is neither limited to generating palette coding syntax in any of the steps nor uses palette coding syntax in any of the method steps; the claiming that “image information” can be a product of an unclaimed information assembly process does not limit the present claim to performing the process. This claim performs “obtaining image information including information on a chroma quantization parameter offset from a bitstream; … wherein the information on the chroma quantization parameter offset is index information on a chroma quantization parameter offset list,” which is performed by the claim without regard of whether the “the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included in the palette coding syntax” or if it is included. See Claim Construction section above.
Cumulatively, Prior art teaches: “The prediction syntax element may include a plurality of prediction syntax elements indicating, respectively, whether entries in palettes for luma and chroma components are to be predicted.” See Joshi, Paragraph 147. More specifically, “Palette-based encoding unit 122 may generate syntax elements to define a palette for a block of video data. Some example syntax elements which palette-based encoding unit 122 may generate to define a current palette for a current block of video data include, but are not limited to, a syntax element that indicates … (ii) one or more syntax elements that indicate whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample (e.g., palette_escape_val_present_flag), … (iii) one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of entries in the current palette that are explicitly signalled ( e.g., num_signalled_palette_entries ), one or more syntax elements [number of entries greater than 0] that indicate a value of a component in a palette entry in the current palette (e.g., palette_entry),” Joshi, Paragraphs 113, 31. When either of these flags is 0, the chroma quantization parameter offset list would not be included. Cumulatively see obviousness of omission below.)
wherein the image decoding method further comprises, for another current block to which palette coding is not applied: obtaining transform unit syntax from the image information: (For example, using “video decoder 30 … inverse transform processing unit 156, reconstruction unit 158, and filter unit 160 may generate decoded video data based on the syntax elements extracted from the bitstream,” without using palette coding. Joshi, Paragraphs 130, 132.)
deriving cu chroma qp offset flag from the transform unit syntax based on cu chroma qp offset enabled flag being equal to 1 and IsCuChromaQpOffsetCoded being equal to 0: and (“syntax element that indicates whether entries in one or more offset lists are added to a luma QP for the current block to determine chroma QPs for the current block (e.g., cu_chroma_qp_offset_flag),” Joshi, Paragraph 189. For example, “if( cu_chroma_qp_offset_enabled_flag && !IsCuChromaQpOffsetCoded ) { cu_chroma_qp_palette_offset_flag …” Joshi, Table 1, Page 4.)
based on cu chroma qp offset flag being equal to 1 and chroma qp offset list len minus1 being greater than 0, deriving cu chroma qp offset idx from the transform unit syntax, (For example, “if( cu_chroma_qp_offset_flag && chroma_qp_offset_list_len_minusl > cu_chroma_qp_palette_offset_idx” Joshi, Table 1, Page 4.)
wherein cu chroma qp offset idx specifies an index into a chroma quantization parameter offset list for the another current block.” (“cu_chroma_qp_palette_offset_flag, and/or cu_chroma_qp_palette_offset_idx), one or more syntax elements related to chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data,” Joshi, Paragraph 31 and Table 1, Page 4.)
Claim 9: “An image encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because Claim 1 discloses decoding the information that is encoded in Claim 9 in the reverse logical order, and it is well-established that “(“video encoder 20 may also encode data indicating a sample value for the pixel, … Video decoder 30 may obtain the above-described data from an encoded bitstream and use the data to determine a palette index and/or pixel value for a particular location in a block.” Joshi, Paragraph 94.”
Claim 16, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing bitstream generated by a method …,” is rejected and because the stored bitstream is a product that is not limited by the process of making it, and because prior art teaches: “a device may store instructions for the software in a suitable, non-transitory computer-readable medium and execute the instructions in hardware such as integrated circuitry using one or more processors to perform the techniques of this disclosure.” Joshi, Paragraph 64. Cumulatively, the claim is also rejected for reasons stated for Claim 9 in view of Joshi, Paragraph 64.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210385500 to Zhang (“Zhang”) relevant for teaching features of palette coding in VVC which are similar to the features in AAPA.
Y. -C. Sun, J. Lou, Y. -H. Chao, H. Wang, V. Seregin and M. Karczewicz, "Analysis of Palette Mode on Versatile Video Coding," 2019 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR), San Jose, CA, USA, 2019, pp. 455-458, doi: 10.1109/MIPR.2019.00091. This reference is also relevant for consideration of the claimed subject matter in VVC before the earliest priority date.
Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in the Specificaiton is relevant for describing previously claimed features of the VVC standard.
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
Prosecution Insights