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 Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. fail to teach “selectively omit at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block” and “wherein the at least some coefficients are selected for omission based solely on respective positions of the at least some coefficients within the 4x4 data block, and wherein the at least some coefficients are omitted whether or not the at least some coefficients are non-zero coefficients”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mukherjee et al. in Section II.D teaches “This block is used to encode the total number of zeros present in the 4x4 quantized block. The zeros present after the last non-zero coefficient are ignored as there is a prior knowledge of the total coefficients in the block. Therefore, the number of zeros after the last non-zero coefficient will be (16 — total non-zero coefficients — zeros before last non-zero coefficient). The Yofal Zeros are encoded depending on the total number of zeros and the total coefficients. it has been observed from the standard that the length of encoded bit stream in the look-up table to encode Total Zeros does not vary to a large extent. Hence, the LUT used for storing the length of encoded data can be replaced with a combinatorial circuit.” The ignoring and skipping of values described is interpreted to meet the selective omitting as filed. In Paragraph 32 of Joshi et al. it teaches “In the transform skip mode, techniques are provided for transform coefficient coding when transforms in the vertical and horizontal directions are performed or skipped. As described in this disclosure, therefore, the transform skip mode does not require a transform to be skipped, but allows transforms to be performed or skipped based on coding efficiency in the horizontal and vertical directions.” In Paragraph 34, Joshi et al. further teaches “The techniques include selecting a transform skip mode for a video block, and coding significant coefficient information for the video block using a coding procedure defined based at least in part on the selected transform skip mode. More specifically, the techniques include using different coding procedures to efficiently code a position of a last non-zero coefficient within the video block in the transform skip mode. The techniques also include using different coding procedures to efficiently code a significance map for the video block in the transform skip mode. In addition, the techniques include one or more of enabling the transform skip mode and coding an indication of the selected transform skip mode based on whether boundaries of the video block are prediction unit boundaries.” In Paragraph 66, Joshi et al. teaches “In some cases, video encoder 20 may enable a transform skip mode for an inter-coded video block or transform unit (TU) based on whether boundaries of the video block comprise prediction unit (PU) boundaries or non-PU boundaries. For example, when the boundaries for a video block in a given direction, e.g., horizontal or vertical, comprise a given combination of PU and non-PU boundaries, e.g., PU-PU, video encoder 20 may enable a transform skip mode. In this case, video encoder 20 may skip application of the transform in the given direction or may signal whether the transform is applied or skipped in the given direction. Otherwise, video encoder 20 may use a boundary dependent transform mode or apply a conventional two-dimensional transform. In other cases, video encoder 20 may use a transform skip mode for the video block, and determine a context used to encode an indication of a selected type of the transform skip mode based on whether boundaries of the video block are PU boundaries or non-PU boundaries.” This clearly teaches omitting selected coefficients while encoding, by applying a transform skip on certain coefficients. These coefficients as claimed clearly may or may not be non-zero.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16, the applicant’s amendments rephrase the claim language but raise the same issues of indefiniteness raised by the original rejection. The phrase "whether or not" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “whether or not” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It remains unclear what the recitation of the phrase “whether or not” achieves and how it is even implemented in the encoding process. Therefore the recitation of “whether or not” is not given patentable weight. Applicant is still required to amend to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected with the same art as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, the phrase "whether or not" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “whether or not” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further the claim recites both “selectively” omitting coefficients, and based solely on respective positions but also that they are omitted “regardless” of value. It is unclear whether the omitting is “selective” or not selective which would be Implied by the word whether or not” they are non-zero. Therefore, the recitation of “whether or not” and the claim limitation that follows is not given patentable weight. Applicant is required to amend to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al. (NPL; “High Performance VLSI Implementation of Context-based Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC) for H.264 Encoder,” 2013 Fourth National Conference on Computer Vision, Pattern Recognition, Image Processing and Graphics (NCVPRIPG), IEEE, 18 December 2013) in view of Joshi et al. (US 20130114730 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mukherjee et al. teaches an apparatus comprising: a video-data encoder (abstract) to:
encode a 4x4 data block into a bit stream according to a context adaptive variable length coding, the 4x4 data block representative of video data (Section 1, Paragraph 1); and
while encoding the 4x4 data block, selectively omit at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block (Section II.D).
However, Mukherjee et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least some coefficients are selected for omission based solely on respective positions of the at least some coefficients within the 4x4 data block, and wherein the at least some coefficients are omitted whether or not the at least some coefficients are non-zero coefficients.
Joshi et al., however, teaches wherein the at least some coefficients are selected for omission based solely on respective positions of the at least some coefficients within the 4x4 data block, and wherein the at least some coefficients are omitted whether or not the at least some coefficients are non-zero coefficients (Paragraphs 10-13; Paragraphs 31-34; Paragraphs 65-67; Paragraphs 92-95).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the encoding apparatus of Mukherjee et al. to include the selective omission based on coefficient position, as taught in Joshi et al. above, in order to more efficiently code digital video information (See Joshi et al. Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the video-data encoder to selectively omit the at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block by setting the at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block to zero prior to encoding the 4x4 data block (Section II.D).
Regarding Claim 3, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 2, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein after setting the at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block to zero, the video-data encoder, so as to encode the 4x4 data block into the bit stream, to: count a number of non-zero coefficients of the 4x4 data block; count a number of trailing ones of the 4x4 data block; encode the number of non-zero coefficients and the number of trailing ones according to the context adaptive variable length coding; encode a sign of each of the trailing ones according to the context adaptive variable length coding; encode levels of coefficients according to the context adaptive variable length coding; encode a count of zeroes before a last non-zero coefficient according to the context adaptive variable length coding; and encode zeroes before the last non-zero coefficient according to the context adaptive variable length coding (Section I; Section II).
Regarding Claim 4, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the video-data encoder to, so as to selectively omit at least some coefficients of the 4x4 data block while encoding the 4x4 data block, one or more of: not count the at least some coefficients as non-zero coefficients when counting non-zero coefficients according to the context adaptive variable length coding; not count the at least some coefficients as trailing ones when counting trailing ones according to the context adaptive variable length coding; not encode a sign of the at least some coefficients when encoding signs of trailing ones according to the context adaptive variable length coding; not encode a level of the at least some coefficients when encoding levels according to the context adaptive variable length coding; and not include the at least some coefficients when identifying a last non-zero coefficient according to the context adaptive variable length coding (Section I; Section II).
Regarding Claim 5, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the at least some coefficients comprise at least two coefficients (Section II.B).
Regarding Claim 6, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the at least some coefficients comprise a last two coefficients of the 4x4 data block, according to a zig-zag scan pattern of the coefficients in the 4x4 data block (Section II.B).
Regarding Claim 7, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the video-data encoder to encode the number of non-zero coefficients and the number of trailing ones and to encode the sign of each of the trailing ones during the same clock cycle (Section II).
Regarding Claim 8, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the video-data encoder to encode the 4x4 data block into the bit stream in 16, or fewer, clock cycles (Section II).
Claims 9-14 are similar and nearly identical to claims 1-6 and are rejected for the reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 15, Mukherjee et al. and Joshi et al. teach the apparatus of claim 9, Mukherjee et al. further teaches wherein the video-data encoder to: transform a data block representative of a group of pixels of an image of the video data, using an integer transform; and quantize the transformed data block to generate the 4x4 data block (Section I; Section II).
Method claims 16-20 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 9-12 and 15. These claims are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights