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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-3, 5-9, 20-22, and 24-30, and 41. Claims 1, 3, 20, 22 and 30 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-9, 20-22, and 24-30, and 41 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks the claims are rejected with the new ground of rejection as laid out below.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 20-22, and 24-30, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20210211673 A1) in view of Sze et al. (US 20130177069 A1) and even further in view of Gamei et al. (US 20160286215 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwarz et al. teaches a method for encoding a picture of a video, the picture comprising a transform unit (Paragraphs 14-16), the method comprising:
quantizing, by a processor, a coefficient of each position in the transform unit to generate a quantization level of the respective position (Paragraphs 10-16; Paragraph 156);
enabling a high throughput mode, wherein in the high throughput mode, a plurality of transform unit bins of the transform unit are changed from context-coded bins to bypass-coded bins, and bypass bit-alignment is applied (Paragraphs 154-169; Paragraphs 199-204; Paragraphs 238-239; Paragraph 244-245); and
encoding, by the processor, the quantization levels of the transform unit into a bitstream in the high throughput mode (Paragraph 52; Paragraph 61);
wherein the method further comprises: invoking application of the bypass bit-alignment before coding a first one of the transform unit bins (Paragraph 199-204; Paragraphs 238-239; Paragraph 244-245; high throughput mode may inherently be decided prior to coding a first bin).
However, Schwarz et al. does not explicitly teach enabling a high throughput mode when a high throughput mode enable flag indicates the high throughput mode is enabled.
Sze et al., however, teaches enabling a high throughput mode when a high throughput mode enable flag indicates the high throughput mode is enabled, wherein a plurality of transform unit bins of the transform unit are changed from context-coded bins to bypass-coded bins, and bypass bit-alignment is applied (Paragraphs 36-45; Paragraph 112); wherein the method further comprises: invoking application of the bypass bit-alignment before coding a first one of the transform unit bins (Paragraphs 36-45).
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 method of Schwarz et al. to include the high throughput flag as in Sze et al. in order to allow for high-throughput implementation in video codecs while also balancing power saving (See Sze et al. Paragraph 7).
However, neither of Schwarz et al. and Sze et al. explicitly teach that bypass bit-alignment is applied by setting a value of a current interval length to be a fixed value.
Gamei et al., however, teaches that bypass bit-alignment is applied by setting a value of a current interval length to be a fixed value (Paragraphs 264-270, Paragraph 267 explicitly states “To bit-align the stream, m_Range is simply set to 256 in both the encoder and decoder”).
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 method of Schwarz et al. and Sze et al. to include the bypass bit-alignment being applied by setting a fixed value as taught in Gamei et al. in order to significantly simplify the encoding and decoding process (See Gamei et al. Paragraph 267).
Regarding Claim 2 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 1, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein encoding comprises coding each of transform unit bins of the transform unit as bypass-coded bins (Paragraph 199-204; Paragraphs 238-239; Paragraph 244-245).
Regarding Claim 3 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 1, however neither of Schwarz et al. and Sze et al. explicitly teach that the fixed value is 256.
Gamei et al., however, teaches that the fixed value is 256 (Paragraphs 264-270, Paragraph 267 explicitly states “To bit-align the stream, m_Range is simply set to 256 in both the encoder and decoder”).
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 method of Schwarz et al. and Sze et al. to include the bypass bit-alignment being applied by setting a fixed value as taught in Gamei et al. in order to significantly simplify the encoding and decoding process (See Gamei et al. Paragraph 267).
Regarding Claim 5 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 1, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein the transform unit comprises a coding block; and in the high throughput mode, a plurality of residual coding bins of the coding block are changed from context-coded bins to bypass-coded bins (Paragraph 199-204).
Regarding Claim 6 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 5, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein encoding comprises coding each of residual coding bins of the coding block as bypass-coded bins (Paragraph 48; Paragraphs 199-204).
Regarding Claim 7 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 5, Schwarz et al. further teaches further comprising setting a value of remaining context-coded bins to be less than a threshold (Paragraph 15; Paragraphs 199-204; Paragraphs 249-252).
Regarding Claim 8 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 7, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein the threshold equals 4, and the value of remaining context-coded bins is set to be 0 (Paragraph 15; Paragraphs 199-204; Paragraphs 249-252).
Regarding Claim 9 Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 5, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein the coding block comprises a plurality of subblocks; and encoding comprises skipping coding a context-coded bin for each of the subblocks (Paragraph 48; Paragraphs 199-204).
Claims 20-22 and 25-29 are drawn to the method of decoding associated with the method of encoding claimed in claims 1-3 and 5-9 above. These claims are drawn to performing substantially the same process in the inverse of claims 1-3 and 5-9 and contain substantially identical claim limitations, and are therefore rejected the same way as above. Schwarz et al. further teaches a method for decoding a picture of a video, the picture comprising a transform unit (Paragraphs 11-13).
Regarding Claim 24 Schwarz et al., Sze et al., and Gamei et al. teach the method of claim 20, Schwarz et al. further teaches wherein the bitstream is decoded by a shift operation after application of the bypass bit-alignment (Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 64-68).
Apparatus claim 30 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 20, and contains substantially the same limitations which are rejected as discussed above. Schwarz et al. further teaches a system for decoding a picture of a video, the picture comprising a transform unit, the system comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, upon executing the instructions of the method of claim 20 (Paragraphs 5-7; Paragraph 18; Paragraphs 518-522).
Claim 41 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Schwarz et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform the steps of the method of claim 1 to generate the bitstream (Paragraphs 5-7; Paragraph 18; Paragraphs 518-522).
Conclusion
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