DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Response to Election / Restriction Requirement filed on 7 OCTOBER 2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-15, 19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 8, 19, and 21, each claim recites “decoding using a range” and it is unclear what the “range” represents given there is no additional context. Different interpretations of range include a plurality number of bits in a block segment, the smallest to largest value of each symbol, etc. Each interpretation being unique and complex to solve. For examination purposes, the interpretation is any range that is associated with the symbols to be decoded.
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) 8-10, 13-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 8, Cheong discloses a device ([0034], “EBC decoder circuit”) for decoding an image ([0035], “decode the bit-stream of encoded image block”), comprising:
a processor ([0042], “the decoder circuitry 208 may be a hardware encoder chip that may be implemented based on one of ASIC, programmable logic devices (PLDs), SOC, FPGA, digital signal processors (DSPs) or other specialized circuitries”) configured to:
decode, from a header of a compressed bitstream of the image ([0042], “decode a bit-stream of encoded image block based on header information”), respective coding types([0025], “header information that may indicate the sequential encoding scheme applied at encoding of the image block, to obtain the bit-stream of encoded image block.” [0055], “The enable bit may be a signaling bit that indicates whether a single coding scheme or different coding scheme is selected for all sub-blocks in the image block.” Note, the scheme is the coding type), wherein:
a respective coding type of the respective coding types indicates how a value([0013], “The disclosed EBC circuitry selects a specific coding scheme from different coding schemes for different sub-blocks of the image block based on a comparison of total count of bits required to encode the image block according to different coding schemes.” Note, the decoder uses the header information for applying the correct scheme),
the respective coding types include a first coding type and a second coding type ([0050], “The encoder circuitry 206 may be configured to select the first coding scheme or the second coding scheme, for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks”),
the first coding type indicates that the value([0029], “the second coding scheme may be a fixed length coding (FLC).” [0050], “The second coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, PCM coding scheme or any fixed length coding scheme”), and
the second coding type indicates that the value([0029], “the first coding scheme may be a variable length coding (VLC).” [0050], “The first coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, an entropy coding scheme such as a Huffman coding scheme, an exponential Golomb coding scheme, a progressive Golomb coding scheme, a Golomb-Rice coding scheme, and a combination of the Huffman coding scheme and the exponential Golomb coding scheme”); and
reconstruct the image ([0015], “decoding of media content (for example, encoded images and/or videos) and further playback of the decoded media content”), including to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, respective values([0032], “The EBC circuitry 108 may utilize the allocated signaling bit at the encoder stage to select an optimal entropy coding scheme for each sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks. Similarly, the allocated signaling bit may be utilized at the decoder stage to identify a coding scheme that was used at the encoder stage to entropy code each sub-block.” [0042], “decode a bit-stream of encoded image block based on header information”).
Cheong fails to expressly disclose the values represent symbols. Note, the term “symbols” represents the value converted into a codeword when entropy coding. The terminology of “symbols” is not used by Cheong and for the sake of completeness, another reference will be relied upon.
However, Yu teaches values represent symbols ([0006], “A process of converting a numerical value, or called a symbol, with an actual meaning into a codeword in a form of bit string is usually called entropy coding, which is a mature. The common entropy coding methods comprise: N-bit fixed-length coding, Exponential-Golomb, Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW) coding, Run-length encoding, Shannon coding, Huffman coding and arithmetic coding”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have entropy coded utilizing symbols, as taught by Yu ([0006]), in Cheong’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong’s disclosure, by incorporating Yu’s disclosure, to improve encoding and decoding efficiency (Yu: [0016]) and because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique of using symbols to a known decoding device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding claim 9, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, a number of the same number of bits ([0046-0049] and [0052] describes the encoding scheme is based on a number of bits, which are signaled and thus decoded); and
decode a symbol value using the number of the same number of bits ([0032], “the allocated signaling bit may be utilized at the decoder stage to identify a coding scheme that was used at the encoder stage to entropy code each sub-block.” Note, the coding scheme will utilize the respective number of bits for decoding).
Regarding claim 10, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the value is a color value of a pixel of the image ([0059] describes how the image block can correspond to a chroma block having a color model, such as RGB).
Regarding claim 13, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a respective decoding parameter associated with the respective coding type ([0035], “the EBC circuitry 108 may be configured to add different coding tables (e.g., custom coding tables for Huffman encoding schemes, Exponential-Golomb encoding schemes, or signaling bit tables) and quantization tables, in header information or a different meta-stream associated with the bit-stream of encoded image block”).
Regarding claim 14, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a specific range associated with the second coding type ([0031] describes the variable length coding having a dependent range of length dependent on the QP residual level).
Regarding claim 15, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to: decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a specified number of bits associated with the first coding type ([0031] describes the fix length coding as having the same code word length (e.g., specified number of bits) for all QP residual levels).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Additionally, Yu discloses wherein the respective coding types includes a trivial coding type indicating that all symbols of a symbol of the symbols in the compressed bitstream are a same value ([0006] describes a plurality of entropy coding methods, including run-length encoding, which is typically best suited for repeating symbols). The same motivation of claim 16 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 17, as outlined above. Additionally, Yu discloses further comprising: decoding the same value from the compressed bitstream ([0006] describes run-length encoding, which when decoded by a decoder, decodes the same value for the specified length). The same motivation of claim 16 applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the respective coding types include at least one fixed-number-of-bits coding type and at least one variable-number-of-bits coding type ([0050], “The first coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, an entropy coding scheme such as a Huffman coding scheme, an exponential Golomb coding scheme, a progressive Golomb coding scheme, a Golomb-Rice coding scheme, and a combination of the Huffman coding scheme and the exponential Golomb coding scheme. The second coding scheme may include, but is not limited to, PCM coding scheme or any fixed length coding scheme.” [0094], “the first coding scheme may include a variable length coding (VLC) scheme and the second coding scheme may include a fixed length coding (FLC) scheme”).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are the same as those in claim 9. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 22.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations are the same as those in claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 13 applies equally as well to claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations are the same as those in claim 14. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 14 applies equally as well to claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations are the same as those in claim 15. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 15 applies equally as well to claim 27.
Claim(s) 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,970,809 B1 (hereinafter “Seiler”).
Regarding claim 11, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Cheong discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
decode a color value of a pixel using the range, wherein the color value is one of a red, green, or blue color channel value ([0019], “decode the encoded image block.” [0059] describes the coded image blocks are of an RGB model and each image block is one of the “R” component, “G” component, and “B” component).
Cheong and Yu fail to expressly disclose decode, from the compressed bitstream, the range, wherein a maximum value of the range is an alpha-channel value of the image, and wherein the image is a pre-multiplied image.
However, Seiler teaches decode, from the compressed bitstream, the range, wherein a maximum value of the range is an alpha-channel value of the image, and wherein the image is a pre-multiplied image (col. 12, l. 65 – col. 13, l. 31 describes RBG images can be sent with an alpha mask, also known as RGBA, or “the system may include a key requirement for image formats in which red, green, and blue values may use pre-multiplied alpha. In other words, each color value may be multiplied by its alpha value before being sent to headset system. As a result, if alpha equal to zero, all three of the color components may be zero as well.” Note, the alpha defines the transparency and when pre-multiplied, limits the range of values for each color component; hence, when alpha is zero, then all three color components are also zero).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have pre-multiplied an alpha mask, as taught by Seiler (col. 13), in Cheong and Yu’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong and Yu’s disclosure, by incorporating Seiler’s disclosure, to improving coding efficiency by minimizing the need to transmit an extra channel and reducing the range of values needed to be coded.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations are the same as those in claim 11. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 11 applies equally as well to claim 23.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162758 A1 (hereinafter “Cheong”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0249841 A1 (hereinafter “Yu”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0155531 A1 (hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 12, Cheong and Yu disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Cheong and Yu fail to expressly disclose wherein the respective coding types further include a third type indicating that the value of the symbol is to be decoded using probabilities in a dictionary.
However, Miller teaches wherein the respective coding types further include a third type indicating that the value of the symbol is to be decoded using probabilities in a dictionary ([0008] describes a code list and using a probability for the code list. Claim 32, “constructing a dictionary code for the input signal using a set of symbol strings and a probability distribution of the set of symbol strings.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a dictionary with probabilities as an entropy coding scheme, as taught by Miller (claim 32), in Cheong and Yu’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Cheong and Yu’s disclosure, by incorporating Miller’s disclosure, because it is an obvious combination of entropy encoding schemes according to known methods for yielding predictable results (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 24, the limitations are the same as those in claim 12. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 12 applies equally as well to claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2008/0131087 A1 – Describes different entropy coding modes, including DPCM/PCM or Huffman coding and arithmetic coding, depending on length of the code words.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481