DETAILED ACTION
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. reissue application No. 17/945,851(“851 Reissue Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date is Sep. 15, 2022 (“851 Actual Filing Date”). Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this reissue application proceeding. The 851 Reissue Application contained, among other things: Reissue Application Declarations by the Inventor and a preliminary amendment.
The 851 Reissue Application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,778,970 (“’970 Patent”) titled “Method And Apparatus Of Decoding Video Data.” The ‘970 Patent was filed on Jan. 8, 2019 and assigned by the Office US patent application number 16/242,886 (“886 Application”) and issued on Sep. 15, 2020 with claims 1-9 (“Originally Patented Claims”).
Because the instant reissue application was filed within two years after the ‘970 Patent was issued, broadening of claim scope is allowed. See MPEP § 1401 and 35 USC § 251.
On Nov. 7, 2024, the Office mailed a non-final office action (“2024 Non-final Office Action”). On May 6, 2025, Applicant filed a response (“May 2025 Response”) to the 2024 Non-final Office Action. The May 2025 Response contains, among other things, “REMARKS” (“May 2025 Remarks”), “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“May 2025 Claim Amendment”). The May 2025 Claim Amendment amended claims 1, 6-7 and new claim 10 and canceled claim 11.
On Jun. 9, 2025, the Office mailed a final office action (“Jun 2025 Final Office Action”). On Nov. 10, 2025, Applicant filed a response (“Nov 2025 Response”) to the Jun 2025 Final Office Action and an RCE. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Nov. 10, 2025 has been entered.
The Nov 2025 Response contains, among other things, “REMARKS” (“Nov 2025 Remarks”), “AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS” (“Nov 2025 Claim Amendment”). The Nov 2025 Claim Amendment added new claims 12-13 and did not make any amendment to claims 1-10.
II. STATUS OF CLAIMS
In light of the above:
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are currently pending (“Pending Claims”).
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are examined.
Claim 11 is canceled.
As a result of the instant office action:
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected.
III. PRIORITY CLAIMS
-This section is the same as that in Jun 2025 Final Office Action.
Based upon a review of the instant application and ‘970 Patent, the Examiner finds that the instant reissue application is a reissue of the ‘970 Patent, issued on September 15, 2020, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/724,934 filed on October 4, 2017 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,212,418 issued on February 19, 2019), which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/349,436 filed on April 3, 2014 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,838,681 issued on December 5, 2017), which was filed as the National Phase of PCT International Application No. PCT/CN2012/084177 filed on November 7, 2012.
The instant application claims foreign priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2011-0115217 filed in Republic of Korea on November 7, 2011. Certified copies of the foreign priority documents are in the file of 14/349,436. However, Applicant has not perfected the claim to the foreign priority by providing certified copies of English translation of the foreign priority documents.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is not on or after March 16, 2013, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions does not apply (to the invention or claims of the instant reissue application). Instead, the earlier ‘First to Invent’ provisions applies.
IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Patent Owner, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how she is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support her interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Processor: “1: one that processes 2. a: (1) a computer (2) The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit b: a computer program (as a compiler) that puts another program into a form acceptable to the computer “Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
2. Configuration: “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
3. encode “(1) (general) To express a single character or a message in terms of a code. (2) (electronic control) To produce a unique combination of a group of output signals in response to each of a group of input signals. (3) (computers) To apply the rules of a code. See also: matrix; translate; code; decode. (4) (modeling and simulation) To represent data in symbolic Form using a code or a coded character set such that reconversion to the original form is possible.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
4. decode: “decode (1) To produce a single output signal from each combination of a group of input signals. (2) (data management) To convert data by reversing the effect of previous encoding.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
5. LCU: “largest unit in a picture for which a quantization parameter (QP) may be generated.” [0018], US Patent Pub. 20110274162.
6. Scan: “(1) (general) To examine sequentially part by part.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary , 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994.
C. Claims Not Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
The Examiner finds that claims 1-10 and 12-13 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. For support of this position the Examiner notes the following;
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are method claims. Claims 1-10 and 12-13 recite neither “step for” nor “means for,” nor a generic placeholder for “step for” or “means for.” Therefore claims 1-10 and 12-13 fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I. Because claims 1-10 and 12-13 fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-10 and 12-13 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008) (precedential).
D. Non-Functional Descriptive material
MPEP 2111.05 states:
However, USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
As noted in Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 126 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied…. While early cases developing this doctrine applied it to claims literally encompassing “printed” materials…. Rather, we have held that a claim limitation is directed to printed matter if it claims the content of information. [Citations and quotations omitted]
Claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101…. While the doctrine's underlying rationale is in subject matter eligibility, its application has been in analyzing other patentability requirements, including novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102…. [Citations and quotations omitted.]
If a claim limitation is directed to printed matter, then the next step is to ascertain whether the printed matter is functionally related to its ‘substrate.’ Printed matter that is functionally related to its substrate is given patentable weight…. Likewise, where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. [Citations omitted.]
And in Ex Parte Mathias, PTAB held:
Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are:
- a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium,
- a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or
- a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.
In this Office action, non-functional descriptive will be identified and the identified non-functional descriptive material may not be given patentable weight.
E. Contingent Limitations
MPEP 2111.04 II states:
II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
Based on MPEP 2111.04, in a method claim, if a condition precedent is not met, then the limitation performed under the condition is not required. In other words, a method can be practiced without the condition to be met, then, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require step to be performed under the condition.
.
V. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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.
Claim 12 now recites “wherein the quantization parameter is generated according to a predetermined order among the left quantization parameter, the above quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter.” Applicant points to col. 4, line 58-col. 5, line 8 (enclosed below) as support.
A left quantization parameter, an above quantization parameter and a previous quantization parameter are sequentially retrieved in this order. An average of the first two available quantization parameters retrieved in that order is set as the quantization parameter predictor when two or more quantization parameters are available, and when only one quantization parameter is available, the available quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor. That is, if the left and above quantization parameters are available, an average of the left and above quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor. If only one of the left and above quantization parameters is available, an average of the available quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor. If both of the left and above quantization parameters are unavailable, the previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor. The average is rounded off.
-col. 4, line 58-col. 5, line 8 of the ‘970 Patent, emphasis added.
As can be seen above, it only discloses retrieving quantization parameters in the order of “left quantization parameter, an above quantization parameter and a previous quantization parameter” but not generating the quantization parameter in the same order. The scopes of “generating” and “retrieving” are different. Also the order is for retrieving quantization parameters for the neighboring blocks, not for generating the quantization parameter for the current block.
Claim 13 recites “wherein when the left and above quantization parameters are unavailable, the previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter.” However, the above disclosure only discloses “when the left and above quantization parameter are unavailable, the previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter predictor,” not the quantization parameter. The quantization parameter is different from the quantization parameter predictor which is used to predict the quantization parameter.
Therefore claims 12 and 13 are rejected as having new matter.
VII. 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
A. Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sole Rojals (US Patent Pub No. 2012/0230420) in view of Zhou et al (US Patent Pub. 20110274162, “Zhou”).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 20 of Sole Rojas
Regarding claim 1, Sole Rojals teaches a method of decoding video data using quantized coefficient components and inter prediction information, the method comprising:
extracting quantized coefficient components and inter prediction information from a received bit stream ([0186], Fig. 20, both quantized coefficient components and inter prediction information were extracted and input to 76 and 72 respectively);
applying an inverse scan pattern to the quantized coefficient components to generate a quantized block having a size of a transform unit (Fig. 6, [0188]-[0190], “the entropy decoding unit 70 (or the inverse quantization unit 76) may scan the received values using a scan mirroring the scan order used by the entropy encoding unit 56 (or the quantization unit 54) of the video encoder 20.” Fig. 20);
generating a quantization parameter per quantization unit which is a unit for deriving a quantization parameter and inverse-quantizing the quantized block to generate a transformed block (Fig. 20 and associated descriptions. [0193] “The inverse quantization process may include use of a quantization parameter QP calculated by the video encoder 20 for the CU to determine a degree of quantization and, likewise, a degree of inverse quantization that should be applied.” CU is a quantization unit);
generating a residual block by inverse-transforming the transformed block (Fig. 20, see “Residual Data” output from 78 in Fig. 20, [0197]);
deriving motion information and generating a prediction block (Fig. 20 and [0196]-[0197], “The summer 80 combines the residual blocks with the corresponding prediction blocks generated by the motion compensation unit 72 or the intra-prediction module 74 to form decoded blocks.”); and
generating a reconstructed block by using the residual block and the prediction block (Fig. 20, 80 in Fig. 20 by adding residual with predicted block, reconstructed block is generated, see also [0197]-[0200]),
wherein when the transform unit is larger than a 4x4 block, the quantized coefficient components are inversely scanned to generate multiple subsets of a predetermined size, and the multiple subsets of a predetermined size are inversely scanned according to a diagonal scan to generate the quantized block (met by Fig. 6, Fig. 22-27 and associated descriptions, [0008], which discloses transform coefficients are scanned in subsets and then coefficient in each subset can be scan again. See also [0210]-[0211] enclosed below and [0218]-[0221] and Fig. 3.).
PNG
media_image2.png
574
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
-Fig. 3 of Sole Rojas scanning to generate multiple subsets or subblocks.
[0008] This disclosure also proposes that, in some examples, the transform coefficients be scanned in sub-sets. In particular, transform coefficients are scanned in a sub-set consisting of a number of consecutive coefficients according to the scan order. Such sub-sets may be applicable for both the significance map scan as well as the coefficient level scan.
[0210] FIG. 22 is a flowchart illustrating an example process for significance map and coefficients level scanning with a harmonized scan order. A method of coding a plurality of transform coefficients associated with residual video data in a video coding process is proposed. The method may be performed by a video coder, such as video encoder 20 or video decoder 30 of FIG. 4. The video coder may be configured to select a scan order (120). The scan order may be selected based on prediction mode, block size, transform, or other video characteristics. In addition, the scan order may be a default scan order. The scan order defines both a scan pattern and a scan direction. In one example, the scan direction is an inverse scan direction proceeding from higher frequency coefficients in the plurality of transform coefficients to lower frequency coefficients in the plurality of transform coefficients. The scan pattern may include one of a zig-zag pattern, a diagonal pattern, a horizontal pattern or a vertical pattern.
[0211] The video coder may be further configured to code information indicating significant coefficients for the plurality of transform coefficients according to a scan order (122) and determine contexts for coding the levels of the significant coefficients for a plurality of sub-sets of the significant coefficients, wherein each of the plurality of sub-sets comprises one or more significant coefficients scanned according to the scan order (124). The video coder also codes information indicating levels of the plurality of transform coefficients according to the scan order (126). The sub-sets may be of different sizes. It should be noted that steps 122, 124 and 126 may be interleaved, as the determination of contexts for level information depends on the previously coded neighbor coefficients.
-[0008], [0210] and [0211] of Sole Rojas, emphasis added.
However Sole Rojas does not expressly disclose:
wherein the quantization parameter is generated by adding a differential quantization parameter and an average of two available quantization parameters determined among a left quantization parameter, an above quantization parameter and a previous quantization parameter.
In the same field of video encoding/decoding, Zhou discloses:
[0020] In some embodiments, QP values are communicated to a decoder in a compressed bit stream as delta QP values. Techniques for computing the delta QPs and for controlling the spatial granularity at which delta QPs are signaled are also provided. In some embodiments, more than one technique for computing the delta QP values may be used in coding a single video sequence. In such embodiments, the technique used may be signaled in a compressed bit stream at the appropriate level, e.g., sequence, picture, slice, and/or LCU.
[0057] In some embodiments, the entropy encoder 334 computes a value for delta QP as a function of the QP values of one or more spatially neighboring QPs. That is, delta QP=QPcurr-f(QPs of spatially neighboring CUs). In this case, f( ) provides the predicted QP value. Computing delta QP in this way may be desirable when rate control is based on perceptual criteria. Examples of the function f( ) include f( )=QP of a left neighboring CU and f( )=the average of the QP value for a left neighboring CU and the QP value of a top neighboring CU. More sophisticated functions of QPs of spatially neighboring CUs may also be used, including using the QP values of more than one or two neighboring CUs.
-[0020] and [0057] of Zhou.
It is desirable to allow a video encoder to take advantage of the increased spatial and/or temporal redundancy in a video sequence to obtain a better coding efficiency and reduce data transmission overhead ([0016] of Zhou) and it is desirable to perform rate control based on perceptual criteria ([0057] of Zhou). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention of the ‘970 Patent, to use the method of Zhou in the method of Sole Rojas so that compression efficiency can be improved and rate control can be based on perceptual criteria.
wherein, when the left quantization parameter is not available, the quantization parameter is generated by adding an average of the above and the previous quantization parameters and the differential quantization parameter (Contingent limitation, the method can be practiced without the condition being satisfied and therefore needs not be given patentable weight. See also Zhou, [0057]-[0059], the quantization parameter predictor is the average of two of the left, top and previous quantization parameter and therefore when the left one is not available, the quantization parameter predictor is the average of top and previous ones, and the quantization parameter is obtained by adding the differential quantization parameter and the quantization parameter predictor)
Regarding claim 2, Sole Rojals in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantized coefficient components are significant flags, coefficient signs and coefficient levels (Sole Rojals, Figs. 28-30, especially Fig. 28, significance, sign, and level in Sole Rojals can be mapped to significant flag, coefficient sign and coefficient level in the claim respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Sole Rojals in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each subset among the multiple subsets is a 4x4 block including 16 transform coefficients (Sole Rojals, [0128], [0119], “FIGS. 7-9 show examples of coefficients arranged into 16 coefficient sub-sets according to specific scan orders beyond being arranged in fixed 4x4 blocks.”).
Regarding claim 4, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a minimum size of the quantization unit is adjusted per picture.
In the same field of video encoding/decoding, Zhou discloses:
[0020] In some embodiments, QP values are communicated to a decoder in a compressed bit stream as delta QP values. Techniques for computing the delta QPs and for controlling the spatial granularity at which delta QPs are signaled are also provided. In some embodiments, more than one technique for computing the delta QP values may be used in coding a single video sequence. In such embodiments, the technique used may be signaled in a compressed bit stream at the appropriate level, e.g., sequence, picture, slice, and/or LCU.
-[0020] of Zhou.
Zhou further discloses “The minimum QP CU size may be set at the sequence, picture, slice, and/or LCU level and signaled in the compressed bit stream accordingly” ([0032]).
It is desirable to allow a video encoder to take advantage of the increased spatial and/or temporal redundancy in a video sequence to obtain a better coding efficiency and reduce data transmission overhead ([0016] of Zhou). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention of the ‘970 Patent, to use the method of Zhou in the method of Sole Rojas so that for different pictures, the minimum CU size can be adjusted depending on the picture’s properties so that compression efficiency can be improved.
Regarding claim 5, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the minimum size of the quantization unit is derived using a parameter specifying the depth of between the minimum size of the quantization unit and an LCU size (Zhou, [0027], the CU structure is coded and decoded by decoder to obtain the minimum size of a CU, “The maximum hierarchical depth is determined by the size of the smallest CU (SCU) permitted.” In other words, the minimum size of the CU can be derived based on the maximum hierarchical depth and the size of LCU.).
Regarding claim 6, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teach the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter is generated by using a differential quantization parameter and the differential quantization parameter is generated by restoring a bin string indicating an absolute value of the differential quantization parameter and a bin indicating a sign of the differential quantization parameter (Zhou, [0056]-[0059], delta QP value is the differential quantization parameter, when decoding QP, it is obvious to decode the bin string indicating the absolute value and a bin indicating a sign. See also Figs. 28-30 and associated descriptions).
Regarding claim 7, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter is generated by adding the differential quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter when the left quantization parameter and the above quantization parameter are unavailable among the left quantization parameter, the above quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter (Zhou, [0057]-[0059], one of the two methods can be used to obtain delta QP, when a left and above quantization parameters are unavailable, QP of current block = deltaQP + QP of previous CU for decoding.).
Regarding claim 8, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each subset among the multiple subsets is generated depending on a subset flag which indicates whether there is non-zero coefficient or not (Sole Rojas, [0132], “The syntax elements may include a significance map with significant coefficient flags that indicate whether particular coefficients are significant (e.g., non-zero) and a last significant coefficient flag that indicates whether a particular coefficient is the last significant coefficient. The video decoder 30 may use these syntax elements to reconstruct the encoded video data.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sole Rojas in view of Zhou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a subset flag, which indicates whether there is a non-zero coefficient or not, is not defined for a first subset and a last subset (Sole Rojas, [0132]. This flag is not defined for the first subset and the last subset in Sole Rojas. Also non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit any of the steps in claim 1. In other words, this limitation is non-limiting and need not be met by the prior art reference.).
Regarding claim 10, Sole Rojas and Zhou teach the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter is generated according to an order of the left quantization parameter, the above quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter (Zhou, [0057] – [0059], decoding is the reverse of encoding, Fig. 20 and associated descriptions).
Regarding claim 12, Sole Rojas and Zhou teach the method of claim 1, wherein the quantization parameter is generated according to a predetermined order among the left quantization parameter, the above quantization parameter and the previous quantization parameter (Zhou, [0057]-[0059]).
[0057] In some embodiments, the entropy encoder 334 computes a value for delta QP as a function of the QP values of one or more spatially neighboring QPs. That is, delta QP=QPcurr-f(QPs of spatially neighboring CUs). In this case, f( ) provides the predicted QP value. Computing delta QP in this way may be desirable when rate control is based on perceptual criteria. Examples of the function f( ) include f( )=QP of a left neighboring CU and f( )=the average of the QP value for a left neighboring CU and the QP value of a top neighboring CU. More sophisticated functions of QPs of spatially neighboring CUs may also be used, including using the QP values of more than one or two neighboring CUs.
-[0057] of Zhou emphasis added.
Although Zhou does not expressly teach the order that the left, top and previous quantization parameter are retrieved as in col. 4, line 58-col. 5, line 8 of the ‘970 Patent, Zhou can definitely read these parameters in such an order because it is the one of the few ways of reading three parameters and it will be obvious to try to read three parameter in this order. See MPEP 2143 KSR Rational “(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.” Further, reading the these parameters in this order or another order is not disclosed to have unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention, to read quantization parameter in the order of left, top and previous quantization parameter.
Regarding claim 13, Sole Rojas and Zhou teach the method of claim 12, wherein when the left and above quantization parameters are unavailable, the previous quantization parameter is set as the quantization parameter (Contingent limitation and because the condition may not be met, the claim does not require the limitation to be performed, further see Zhou, [0057]- [0059], ”If (qp_predictor_mode == 1) deltaQP = (QP of current CU) - (QP of previous CU in coding order).” Further, when the left and above quantization parameters are not available, can use “qp_predictor_mode =1” mode and in this situation, the quantization predictor is QP of previous CU in coding order, that is, the previous quantization parameter).
B. Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are alternatively rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sole Rojals in view of Zhou et al further in view of Lu et al (US Patent Pub. US 2013/0077871, “Lu” see also 61/353,365 at p.7).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 12-13, it is Examiner’s principal position that the limitation
“wherein, when the left quantization parameter is not available, the quantization parameter is generated by adding an average of the above and the previous quantization parameters and the differential quantization parameter.” To the extent that checking whether “the left quantization parameter is not available” is required, in the same field of endeavor, Lu discloses the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
334
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
-Provisional Application 61/353,365, p. 7.
See also Lu at [0074]-[0080].
As can be seen above, Lu discloses checking if any of the values for A, B, C is not available, obtains the quantization parameter predictor accordingly.
It is desirable to provide high perceptual quality at the region of the interest (Lu, [0074]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of the invention, to use the method of Lu, to the extent that Zhou does not already check availability of quantization parameters of the left or top neighboring blocks, in the method of Zhou so that quantization parameter can be predicted so that better overall perceptual quality can be achieved in coding video in Zhou.
VIII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
A. Rejection under 35 USC § 251
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Because the claims in this application are directed to methods while the application on which the recapture was based is directed to apparatus claims, the Examiner hereby withdraws the rejection of improper recapture under 35 USC § 251.
B. Rejection under 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that Zhou does not teach the checking of the condition “when the left quantization parameter is not available” in the following limitation (Nov 2025 Remarks, pp. 10-13):
wherein, when the left quantization parameter is not available, the quantization parameter is generated by adding an average of the above and the previous quantization parameters and the differential quantization parameter.
First, the Examiner would like to point out that the instant claims, such as claim 1, do not recite “checking if the left quantization parameter is not available.”
Second, the limitation “when…” is contingent limitation, and the condition may be met, therefore the limitation needs not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.4.
Third, because Zhou is averaging to obtain the predictor for the quantization parameter, as shown below, as such if a left quantization parameter is not available, the available quantization parameters are used in the average.
[0020] In some embodiments, QP values are communicated to a decoder in a compressed bit stream as delta QP values. Techniques for computing the delta QPs and for controlling the spatial granularity at which delta QPs are signaled are also provided. In some embodiments, more than one technique for computing the delta QP values may be used in coding a single video sequence. In such embodiments, the technique used may be signaled in a compressed bit stream at the appropriate level, e.g., sequence, picture, slice, and/or LCU.
[0057] In some embodiments, the entropy encoder 334 computes a value for delta QP as a function of the QP values of one or more spatially neighboring QPs. That is, delta QP=QPcurr-f(QPs of spatially neighboring CUs). In this case, f( ) provides the predicted QP value. Computing delta QP in this way may be desirable when rate control is based on perceptual criteria. Examples of the function f( ) include f( )=QP of a left neighboring CU and f( )=the average of the QP value for a left neighboring CU and the QP value of a top neighboring CU. More sophisticated functions of QPs of spatially neighboring CUs may also be used, including using the QP values of more than one or two neighboring CUs.
-[0020] and [0057] of Zhou.
As can be seen above, when the left quantization parameter is not available, the computing of f() will automatically uses the average of available neighboring QPs as the predictor. Therefore the checking step is inherent because it will need to computer the average value based on it and neighboring QPs.
Accordingly, after reconsideration, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 has not been overcome.
IX. CONCLUSION
A. Reissue Application Reminders
Disclosure of other proceedings. Applicants are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the Patent Under Reissue is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Disclosure of material information. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of making amendments. Applicant is reminded that changes to the Instant Application must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.173, such that all amendments are made in respect to the Patent Under Reissue as opposed to any prior changes entered in the Instant Application. All added material must be underlined, and all omitted material must be enclosed in brackets, in accordance with Rule 173. Applicant may submit an appendix to any response in which claims are marked up to show changes with respect to a previous set of claims, however, such claims should be clearly denoted as “not for entry.”
B. Suggested Examples: Preventing Both New Matter Rejections & Objections to the Specification in the Future
Applicants are respectfully reminded that any suggestions or examples of claim language provided by the Examiner are just that—suggestions or examples—and do not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner. To be especially clear, any suggestion or example provided in this Office Action (or in any future office action) does not constitute a formal requirement mandated by the Examiner.
Should Applicants decide to amend the claims, Applicant is also reminded that—like always—no new matter is allowed. The Examiner therefore leaves it up to Applicants to choose the precise claim language of the amendment in order to ensure that the amended language complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph.
Independent of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 1st paragraph, Applicants are also respectfully reminded that when amending a particular claim, all claim terms must have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Should Applicants amend the claims such that the claim language no longer has clear support or antecedent basis in the specification, an objection to the specification may result. Therefore, in these situations where the amended claim language does not have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification and to prevent a subsequent ‘Objection to the Specification’ in the next office action, Applicants are encouraged to either (1) re-evaluate the amendment and change the claim language so the claims do have clear support or antecedent basis or, (2) amend the specification to ensure that the claim language does have clear support or antecedent basis. See again MPEP § 608.01(o) (¶3). Should Applicants choose to amend the specification, Applicants are reminded that—like always—no new matter in the specification is allowed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). If Applicants have any questions on this matter, Applicants are encouraged to contact the Examiner via the telephone number listed below.
C. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to YUZHEN GE whose telephone number is (571)272-7636. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yuzhen Ge/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/NICK CORSARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the ‘970 Patent, or in the prior art.