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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended language: “wherein, for the current block on which the palette coding is performed, the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included …” Applicant argues: “Joshi does not disclose or suggest the above-noted features of claim 1.”
Examiner notes that the amended language raises many issues that are addressed in detail below, with one issue being that the present Specification also does not disclose the amended claim language.
Applicant argues: “Accordingly, Joshi may disclose: ( a) an escape flag in palette coding (Joshi, p. I 2, Table I-continued: "palette escape Val present flag"), and (b) a chroma QP offset index syntax element (Joshi, p.I2, Table I-continued: "cu chroma qp palette offset idx"), However, Joshi does not disclose or suggest the claimed rule that the chroma QP offset list index is included only when the tree type is not dual tree luma and escape is present and entries>0.”
Examiner notes that Joshi indicates and AAPA supports that the index should not be claimed under the three amended conditions. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action relies on the general idea that Joshi signals index information (citing Joshi <j{10I), and further attempts to connect dual-tree luma and escape/list conditions to the claimed inclusion/exclusion behavior. However, as shown above, Joshi's actual conditional signaling rule for the chroma QP offset index is different: it is driven by the chroma QP offset flag and list length (Joshi, p. I2, Table I-continued), not by tree type and escape presence.”
Examiner notes that AAPA, Paragraph 150 indicates that this nomenclature and condition is in reference to the VVC standard. So, it is not clear how following the suggestion of the VVC would be inventive. See updated reasons for rejection below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 9, 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 16 are amended to recite “wherein, for the current block on which the palette coding is performed, the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included in the palette coding syntax unless (i) the tree type of the current block is not dual tree Zuma, (ii) the escape related information indicates that the current block contains at least one escape coded sample, and (iii) the number of entries in the chroma quantization parameter offset list is greater than 0.” However, Examiner did not find support for this negative limitation in the Specification.
In particular, Specification Paragraphs 160, 197 and Tables 1, 7 provide example conditions for including the “cu_chroma_qp_offset_idx” but not require exclusion of the index under all other conditions. For example, Paragraph 198 and Table 8 indicate that this index is allowed to be coded without checking an escape coded sample. “An embodiment in which elements are combined and/or separated is also included in the scope of rights of this document” Specification, Paragraph 33.
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 § 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, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160373745 to Joshi (“Joshi”) in view of Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) describing the VVC standard in the Specification.
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, for the current block on which the palette coding is performed, the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included in the palette coding syntax unless … (ii) the escape related information indicates that the current block contains at least one escape coded sample, and (iii) the number of entries in the chroma quantization parameter offset list is greater than 0.” (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. 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. Cumulatively see obviousness of omission below.)
Joshi also indicates that “the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list is not included in the palette coding syntax unless (i) the tree type of the current block is not dual tree luma,” simply because Joshi simply does not require coding of the index information when the current block is not dual tree luma, because Joshi codes using the single tree or the quadtree partitions. See Joshi, Paragraphs 68-69.
Cumulatively, AAPA teaches that this is a feature “in the VVC standard, a dual tree may be enabled for I slice that separates coding unit partitioning for luma and chroma. The palette coding (palette mode) may be appliedto luma (Y component) and chroma (Cb and Cr component) individually or together. When the dual tree is disabled, the palette coding (palette mode) may be applied to luma (Y component) and chroma (Cb and Cr component) together,” and thus index information would not be included separately from the luma. See Specification, Paragraph 150.
Indeed, note that an omission of chroma data (element) when chroma palette coding (its function) is not used in an obvious omission. See Claim construction above. The conditions above indicate that (i) luma is coded and chroma is not coded separately (See Specification Paragraph 150), (ii) escape sample indicates that chroma is not coded, and (iii) absence of chroma data indicates that chroma is not coded. Thus, omission of the element when its function is not desired is an obvious one.
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 Joshi to not include “the index information on the chroma quantization parameter offset list in the palette coding syntax unless (i) the tree type of the current block is not dual tree luma” in the manner described in Joshi or taught in AAPA, in order to omit coding data for functionality that is omitted from coding of the video, such that the method “may be configured to selectively code various blocks of video data, such as CU's or PU's in HEVC coding, using either palette-based coding or non-palette based coding.”. See Joshi, Paragraph 103, and AAPA Paragraphs 142, 145, 150.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights