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
Amendment, filed on 02/09/2026, has been entered.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-24 are pending with claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 16-22 being amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application has a lengthy prosecution history and the examiner encourages the applicant to have an interview (telephonic or personal) with the examiner prior to filing a response to the instant office action. Also, prior to the interview the examiner encourages the applicant to present multiple possible claim amendments, so as to enable the examiner to identify claim amendments that will advance prosecution in a meaningful manner.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but they are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 11,546,595. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patent .
This is a non-provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 18/076015 vs. Patent No. 11,546,595 (Application No. 17/529533)
Claims: Application 18/076015
Claims: Application 17/529533 (US Pat. 11,546,595)
1. A method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, at a sub-block level of a current video block comprising multiple sub-blocks, whether a transform skip mode is applied to each sub-block,
wherein, for an encoding operation, the
transform skip mode does not apply a transform operation, or for a decoding operation, the transform skip
mode does not apply an inverse transform operation, and wherein the current video block is a coding unit, and
wherein the multiple sub-blocks are smaller in size than the coding unit; and
determining the transform skip mode is applied to the sub-block at least under a condition that a size of the sub-block is smaller than or equal to a second allowed maximum size; and
Performing a conversion between the current video block of a video and a bit stream of the video.
1. A method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, at a sub-block level of a current video block comprising multiple sub-blocks, that a transform skip mode is applied to a first sub-block of the multiple sub-blocks,
wherein the transform skip mode is a transform skip mode, wherein, for an encoding operation, the transform skip mode does not apply a transform operation, or for a decoding operation, the transform skip mode does not apply an inverse transform operation, and
wherein the current video block is a coding unit, wherein the multiple sub-blocks are smaller in size than the coding unit; and
performing, based on the determining, a conversion between the current video block of a video and the bitstream of the video,
wherein that the transform skip mode is applied to the first sub-block is determined at least based on a size of the first sub-block and a first allowed maximum size for the transform skip mode,
wherein a single second syntax element that indicates the first allowed maximum size is included in the bitstream which is also used for controlling usage of a block differential pulse coding mode for a video block of a video region which also includes the current video block, and wherein in the block differential pulse coding mode, differences between quantized residuals derived with an intra prediction mode of the video block and predictions of the quantized residuals are included in the bitstream.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13, 17-20 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (“Joshi”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2014/0286400 A1] in view of Joshi et al. (“Joshi_721”) [US 2014/0226721 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, at a sub-block level (i.e. ‘CU’ or ‘NxN block’ or ‘2Nx2N’) of a current video block (i.e. ‘CTU’ or ‘LCU’) [para. 0060-0062, 0199-0200] comprising multiple sub-blocks, whether a transform skip mode (e.g. ‘a transform skipping mode’) [Fig. 6; para. 0218-0219: ‘control signal 132’ determines the lossless (i.e. a transform skipping mode) or lossy coding; ‘Elements 136 and 138 represent switches’ to implement a transform skipping mode] is applied to each sub-block,
wherein, for an encoding operation [Fig. 6: video encoder 20], the transform skip mode does not apply a transform operation [Fig. 6: video encoder 20; para. 0218-0219: ‘a transform skipping mode’], or for a decoding operation[Fig. 6, 7], the transform skip mode does not apply an inverse transform operation [para. 0218-0219: ‘bypasses the inverse transform’], and wherein the current video block is a coding unit (i.e. ‘CU’ or ‘NxN block’ or ‘2Nx2N’) [para. 0060-0062, 0199-0200. Note: ‘a CTU is not necessarily limited to a particular size and may include one or more coding units (CUs)’], and
wherein the multiple sub-blocks are smaller (e.g. a quarter of a CTU) in size than the coding unit [para. 0199: ‘a CTU into four equally-sized sub-block’];
determining that the transform skip mode (e.g. ‘a transform skipping mode’) [Fig. 6; para. 0218-0219: ‘control signal 132’ determines the lossless (i.e. a transform skipping mode) or lossy coding; ‘Elements 136 and 138 represent switches’ to implement a transform skipping mode] is applied to the sub-block (i.e. ‘CU’) [para. 0060-0062; 0199-0200: ‘encode each CTU in a slice of a picture’] at least (e.g. a quarter of a CTU) is smaller than or equal to a second allowed maximum size (i.e. ‘CTU’ or LCU) [para. 0060-0062; 0199-0200: ‘encode each CTU in a slice of a picture’ and ‘encode CUs of a CTU’ to disclose CTU as a second allowed maximum size. Note: ‘a CTU is not necessarily limited to a particular size and may include one or more coding units (CUs)’] and
performing (i.e. based on the ‘determining whether a transform skip mode is applied to each sub-block’) a conversion (i.e. transform and quantization) between the current video block of a video and a bit stream of the video [Fig. 6 shows bitstream generated from quantization unit 106].
Joshi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
determining that the transform skip mode is applied to the sub-block at least under a condition that a size of the sub-block is smaller than or equal to a second allowed maximum size.
However in the same field of endeavor Joshi_721 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determining (i.e. ‘Determine size of residual block for which transform is not applied’) [Fig. 9, 10; para. 0035: ‘the threshold size may be less than or equal to maximum block size for which transform skipping is permitted’] that the transform skip mode is applied to the sub-block at least under a condition that (e.g., 4x4 or 8x8) a size of the sub-block is smaller than or equal to a second allowed maximum size [Fig. 9, 10; para. 0035: ‘the threshold size may be less than or equal to maximum block size for which transform skipping is permitted’].
Joshi and Joshi_721 are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Joshi and Joshi_721 as motivation to skip transformation for smaller sizes of subblock to avoid unnecessary processing and to maintain the overall coding efficiency [Joshi_721: para. 0003, 0006-0009].
Regarding claim 3, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the transform skip mode is applied to the sub-block is based on a first syntax element (i.e. “a size of the sub-block”) [See rejection of claim 1 limitation: “determining that the transform skip mode is applied to the sub-block] included in the bitstream, and wherein the first syntax element is associated with the sub-block.
Regarding claim 8, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein in the transform skip mode, a quantization operation
is also skipped in the encoding operation [Fig. 6: ‘136’; para. 0219: ‘the residual data is not quantized’] and an inverse quantization operation is also skipped in the decoding operation [Fig. 7: ‘172’; para. 0233: ‘bypasses the inverse transform and inverse quantization processes’].
Regarding claim 9, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding (i.e. transform and quantization) the current video block into the bitstream [Fig. 6 shows bitstream generated from quantization unit 106].
Regarding claim 10, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding (i.e. inverse-transform and inverse-quantization) the current video block from the bitstream [Fig. 6 shows decoded video generated from inverse transform].
Regarding claim 11, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Joshi [para. 0008, 0013] discloses ‘a memory storing data; and one or more processors’ or ‘a computer-readable data storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed’.
Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the corresponding “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Note: Joshi [para. 0008, 0013] discloses ‘a memory storing data; and one or more processors’ or ‘a computer-readable data storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed’.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding “A method for storing a bitstream” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, the corresponding “A method for storing a bitstream” in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 22, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 8, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 2, 12 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi in view of Joshi_721 in further view of Lin et al. (“Lin”) [US 2011/0255600 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Joshi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Joshi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The method of claim 1, wherein the multiple sub-blocks are split from the current video block based on a size of the current video block and a first allowed maximum size for a transform process.
However in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the multiple sub-blocks are split from the current video block based on a size of the current video block (i.e. LCU) and a first allowed maximum size (i.e. SCU) for a transform process [para. 0028: ‘the coding units can be coding units of a size between a predetermined largest coding unit (LCU) and a predetermined smallest coding unit (SCU)].
Joshi, Joshi_721 and Lin are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Joshi, Joshi_721 and Lin as motivation to generate coding units having sizes between the predetermined sizes of LCU and SCU for localized multihypothesis prediction [Lin: para. 0028].
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Claims 6 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi in view of Joshi_721 in further view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) [US 2015/0264354 A1]
Regarding claim 6, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein a single second syntax element [para. 0062: ‘a single coding block of samples and syntax structure’] that indicates the second allowed maximum size is included in the bitstream which is also used in a size constraint for a differential coding mode [para. 0120-0123: ‘In JCTVC-L0117, residual DPCM is applied when a CU is being coded losslessly’] for a video block [para. 0120-0123: block of size M(rows)xN(cols)] of a video region which also includes the current video block, and
wherein in the differential coding mode, differences between quantized residuals derived with an intra prediction mode of the video block [para. 0120-0123: ‘performing intra prediction’; Eq. (23), (24)] and predictions of the quantized residuals are included in the bitstream [Fig. 6, 7 show residuals and bitstream].
Joshi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a single second syntax element that indicates the second allowed maximum size is included in the bitstream which is also used in a size constraint for a differential coding mode for a video block of a video region which also includes the current video block.
However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a single second syntax element that indicates the second allowed maximum size is included in the bitstream (e.g. ‘Syntax data within a bitstream may define a size for the LCU’) [para. 0073-0076: ‘Syntax data within a bitstream …’] which is also used in a size constraint for a differential coding mode for a video block of a video region which also includes the current video block.
Joshi, Joshi_721 and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Joshi, Joshi_721 and Zhang as motivation to include syntax elements to generate a sequence of treeblocks in accordance with HEVC [Zhang: para. 0073].
Regarding claim 24, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Claims 7, 16 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi in view of Joshi_721 in further view of Zhang in further view of Joshi et al. (“Joshi_395”) [US 2013/0336395 A1]
Regarding claim 7, Joshi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control for the differential coding mode (i.e. DPCM) [para. 0217] is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream [para. 0057: ‘SPS’] under a conditional check of whether the transform skip mode is allowed [Fig. 6: a switch 130 and control signal 132 for the transform skip mode; para. 0218-0219].
Joshi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control for the differential coding mode is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream under a conditional check of whether the transform skip mode is allowed.
However in the same field of endeavor Joshi_395 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control [Fig. 4; Abstract, para. 0007, 0032-0035, 0039: ‘pcm_enabled_flag’ at the SPS level; ‘Next, pcm_flag will be signaled to indicate or read to determine whether PCM mode’] for the differential coding mode is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream [para. 0032-0035] under a conditional check of whether the transform skip mode is allowed.
Joshi, Joshi_721, Zhang and Joshi_395 are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Joshi, Joshi_721, Zhang and Joshi_395 has motivation to include syntax elements to signal the PCM coding mode in accordance with the video standard HEVC [Joshi_395: 0032].
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6 and Josh meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control for the differential coding mode [para. 0039-0040: ‘or residual DPCM is used’] is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream under the conditional check of whether a transform skip first coding mode is allowed.
Joshi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control for the differential coding mode is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream under the conditional check of whether a transform skip first coding mode is allowed.
However in the same field of endeavor Joshi_395 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a third syntax element that indicates on/off control [Fig. 4; Abstract, para. 0007, 0032-0035, 0039: ‘pcm_enabled_flag’ at the SPS level; ‘Next, pcm_flag will be signaled to indicate or read to determine whether PCM mode’] for the differential coding mode is included at a sequence parameter set (SPS) level of the bitstream [para. 0032-0035] under the conditional check of whether a transform skip first coding mode is allowed.
Joshi, Joshi_721, Zhang and Joshi_395 are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Joshi, Joshi_721, Zhang and Joshi_395 has motivation to include syntax elements to signal the PCM coding mode in accordance with the video standard HEVC [Joshi_395: 0032].
Regarding claim 21, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the apparatus form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488