DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/20/2026.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 7-9, 11-14, and 22 have been amended, where Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims. Further, Claims 3, 10, 16, and 18 were previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Pu, Pang et al. WO 2016/057701 A1 (PTO 892), and Fynn et al. “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Range Extensions text specification: Draft 4” (From IDS dated 01/22/2025 - PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Pu, Pang and Flynn, respectively. A new ground of rejection is also made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see examiner’s responses below for details.
2. Applicant amended the independent claims to read “and a variable indicating a desired bit depth for the weighted prediction which is lower than the bit depth associated with the input video” and “and the variable is used for determining the offset value” (emphasis added), where the “variable” is further defined. As such, it is believed the scope of the claims has changed. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s assertion that Pu’s “shift1” cannot read on the foregoing limitation (pg. 10 of remarks). However, after carefully reconsidering Pu’s disclosure, the examiner believes ¶0102-¶0103 are relevant, particularly with respect to the expression
1 << (bitDepth - 8) in equations 8-246, 8-247, 8-251, and 8-252, where “bitDepth” is taken to be the bit depth associated with the input video and the value “8” can be construed as the set precision. Please note, the value “8” is also understood to be the minimum bit depth allowed in HEVC. Although the value “8” is a constant and not a “variable” as required, it seems that setting a variable (e.g. LowBitDepth) to a desired precision (e.g. “8”), as shown in ¶0031 of the filed specification, will yield an expression similar to that found in Pu. Examiner respectfully submits that having a variable in the expression (e.g. bitDepthY – variable) essentially serves as a placeholder that allows other precisions to be set (e.g. 8), which would be considered within the level of skill in the art. An example of this can be found on pg. 69 of Fynn et al. “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Range Extensions text specification: Draft 4” (PTO 892), where the number of bits used to represent PCM sample values of a luma component is given by the variable PcmBitDepthγ (equation 7-25) which is less than or equal to the value of BitDepthγ. Although not related to weighted prediction parameters, this example illustrates the use of a variable, where said variable is less than the bitdepth of the input video.
Pu also discloses determining the weighted prediction parameters without multiplying by 1 << (bitDepth - 8), i.e. the bit-wise left-shift operator << is not applied. This is similar to what is found in ¶0030-¶0031 of the filed specification. Also relevant is the work of Pang with reference to ¶0165-¶0166, where expressions 7-31, 7-32, 7-33, and 7-34 closely parallel those in ¶0031of the filed specification. The only difference is that Pang, like Pu, uses a constant value of “8” versus having a variable that can take on different precisions. Here the value of “8” is construed to be one such precision. For e.g., variable WpOffsetBdShiftY in expression 7-31 is derived as WpOffsetBdShiftY = high_precision_offsets_enabled_flag ? 0 : (BitDepthY - 8). For e.g., a flag equal to 0 specifies the weighted prediction offset value uses a precision equivalent to eight bit processing, i.e. a lower bit depth. In the case of Pang, this is construed to be “8”. Thus, whether the lower bit depth is determined by a constant value as above or is based on setting a desired precision of a variable (e.g. LowBitDepth) that can take on the same constant value is believed to be analogous and would be within the level of skill in the art. For all of these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits that Pu, Pang, and Flynn either alone or in combination, reasonably disclose and/or suggest the aforementioned features given their BRI.
3. Applicant’s response regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is acknowledged, however, based on the current art of record (notably Pu), the rejection is maintained for now. Please refer to the office action dated 01/20/2026.
4. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
5. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 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, 8, and 14, they recite the limitation “...and a variable indicating a desired bit depth for the weighted prediction which is lower than the bit depth associated with the input video” which, as noted by Applicant, appears to find support in ¶0030-¶0031 of the filed specification as in relation to variable 'LowBitDepth'. However after carefully considering the syntax and semantics presented in ¶0031, it appears the LowBitDepth variable is used to determine a desired bit depth for the weighted prediction versus indicating the desired bit depth itself. For e.g., if the extended_precision_flag is not true (i.e. is 0), the desired bit depth for the weighted prediction offset value appears to be based on a difference between the bit depth of the input video and the LowBitDepth variable (e.g. bitDepthY – LowBitDepth). Although the variable does identify a bit depth that is lower than that associated with the input video, it does not appear to indicate the desired bit depth for the weighted prediction as recited. As such, the metes and bounds of the aforementioned limitation cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 19-22, these all depend on their respective independent claims above, and thus include all of their limitations. As such, these too are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu et al. US 2015/0098503 A1, in view of Pang et al. WO 2016/057701 A1, and in further view of Flynn et al. “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Range Extensions text specification: Draft 4”, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 13th Meeting: Incheon, KR, 18-26 April 2013, hereinafter referred to as Pu, Pang, and Flynn, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Pu teaches and/or suggests “A computer-implemented method for encoding or decoding a video comprising: determining a bit depth associated with an input video [Pu teaches a bit depth of the input video (e.g. ¶0019). See for e.g. bitDepth in ¶0046]; determining a bit depth associated with a weighted prediction of the input video based on the bit depth associated with the input video, [¶0019 further describes matching the bit depth of explicit weighted prediction parameters to the bit depth of the input video in relation to the disclosed techniques for HEVC range extension] an extended precision flag [See syntax element “use_high_precision_weighted_prediction_flag” (e.g. ¶0104-¶0106). Also note Pang’s flag below for additional support] and a variable indicating a desired bit depth for the weighted prediction which is lower than the bit depth associated with the input video [For details, please see examiner’s response #2. In ¶0102-¶0103, the value ‘8’ in the expression (bitDepth-8) can be construed as a set precision which can be considered for e.g. the minimum bit depth allowed in HEVC. Although 8 is a constant, having a variable in its place to allow other precisions to be used would be considered within the level of skill in the art. Also see Pang and Flynn below for further support] wherein the extended precision flag indicates whether a weighting factor and/or an offset value of the weighted prediction is the same as or different from the bit depth associated with the input video [Depending on the state of the “use_high_precision_weighted_prediction_flag” (0 or 1), the bit depth of the weighted prediction parameters can be set to a ‘high bit depth’ (for e.g. > 10 bits as shown in ¶0106-¶0107) or matched to the bit depth of the input video (¶0019), i.e. the same)], and the variable is used for determining the offset value [See e.g. ¶0102-¶0103 with respect to variables o0 and o1 which are understood to be weighted prediction offset parameters. Also please refer to Pang below for further support]; determining the weighting factor and the offset value of the weighted prediction based on the bit depth associated with the weighted prediction [Weighting factors and offsets are calculated via left shift (1 << (bitDepth – 8) when the bit depth of the weighted prediction parameters is determined to be 8 bit (e.g. ¶0085-¶0103). When the bit depth of the weighted prediction parameters is determined to be equal to the bit depth of the input video bitDepth, the left shift is not performed (¶0103). Also please refer to figs. 4-5]; and processing the input video based on the weighting factor and the offset value of the weighted prediction [Please refer to fig. 4-5]. Although Pu’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the aforementioned features, the work of Pang from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to further teach and/or suggest “an extended precision flag”, [See ¶0165-¶0166 with respect to syntax element high_precision_offsets_enabled_flag] “and a variable indicating a desired bit depth for the weighted prediction which is lower than the bit depth associated with the input video” [¶0165-¶0166. Although similar to Pu, the value 8 in the expression (bitDepth-8) can be construed as a set precision which can be considered the minimum bit depth allowed in HEVC. Although a constant, having a variable in its place to allow other precisions to be used would be considered within the level of skill in the art.] and “and the variable is used for determining the offset value” [The expressions in ¶0165-¶0166 disclose determining the offset value for weighted prediction] Although both Pang and Pu disclose (BitDepth – ‘8’) vs. (BitDepth - ‘variable’) when determining a bit depth precision for the weighted prediction parameters, they are deemed relevant since replacing a fixed value with a variable that can be set to that same fixed value (or other values) is considered to be within the level of skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pu’s approach for implementing high precision weighted prediction (abstract), to add the coding techniques of Pang which allow high precision offsets to be enabled so that they may be signaled using a bit-depth dependent precision (¶0165).
Nonetheless, to show a variable can be subtracted from the bit depth of an input video, and moreover, is lower than the bit depth of said input video, the work of Flynn from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest this feature. [See pg. 69 where the number of bits used to represent PCM sample values of a luma component is given by the variable PcmBitDepthγ (equation 7-25) which is less than or equal to the value of BitDepthγ.] Given Flynn’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the approaches of both Pu and Pang for high precision weighted prediction, to add the coding techniques of Flynn related to HEVC range extensions that enables the use of coding video representations in a flexible manner for a wide variety of network environments as well as to enable the use of multi-core parallel encoding and decoding devices (Sect. 0.3 “Purpose” on pg. 15).
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Pu, Pang, and Flynn teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the bit depth associated with the weighted prediction is the same as the bit depth associated with the input video.” [Please refer to ¶0019 0f Pu with respect to matching the bit depth of explicit weighted prediction parameters to the bit depth of the input video, i.e. is the same]
Regarding claim 4, (Previously Presented) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the determining the weighting factor and the offset value of the weighted prediction is further based on a left shift by a number of bits based on the variable indicating the desired bit depth and the bit depth associated with the input video.” [Pu discusses computing weighting factors and offsets with respect to a left shift 1<<(bitDepth-8)) if the bitdepth associated with the weighted prediction parameters is 8 bits (see for e.g. ¶0085-¶0103) or without the left shift if the bit depth of the weighted prediction parameters is determined to be equal to “bitDepth” (bit depth of the input video)]
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: determining a pixel value of a picture in the input video based on the weighting factor and the offset value of the weighted prediction and a reference pixel value of a reference picture in the input video.” [See ¶0052-¶0055 with respect to equations 8-253, 8-254, and 8-255, with pixel values of a picture in the input video “predSamples[x][y]”, weighting factors “w0”, “w1”, offsets “o0” and “o1”, and reference pixel value of a reference picture “predSamplesL0[x][y]” and “predSamplesL1[x][y]”]
Regarding claim 6, (Previously Presented) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the pixel value of the picture in the input video is clipped to a minimum pixel value or a maximum pixel value.” [See Clip3 operator in equations 8-253, 8-254, and 8-255 which clips the pixel values to a minimum pixel value of 0 or a maximum pixel value of ((1<<bitDepth)-1)]
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing the input video includes decoding the input video.” [See fig. 4 and ¶0149-¶0153 along with fig. 5 and ¶0154-¶0158]
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, (Currently Amended) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing the input video includes encoding the input video.” [See fig. 4 and ¶0149-¶0153 along with fig. 5 and ¶0154-¶0158]
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software of the computing system, please see encoder 20 and decoder 30 of Pu in for e.g. figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, (Previously Presented) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 14, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing the input video comprises: scaling a first reference pixel of a first reference picture by a first weighting factor [Weighting factor “w0” (i.e. a 1st weighting factor) scales a first reference pixel value of a first reference picture corresponding to a first reference picture list 0, i.e. “predSamplesL0[x][y]”. See for e.g. ¶0052-¶0056 and eq. 8-253 thru 8-255]; scaling a second reference pixel of a second reference picture by a second weighting factor [Weighting factor “w1” (i.e. a 2nd weighting factor) scales a second reference pixel value of a second reference picture corresponding to a second reference picture list 1, i.e. “predSamplesL1[x][y]”. See citations above]; applying a first offset value to the first reference pixel of the first reference picture [See citations above with respect to a first offset value “o0” that can be applied to said first reference pixel value of a first reference picture corresponding to a first reference picture list 0. Also please see ¶0150-¶0151 and ¶0155-¶0156 regarding weighting factors and offset values]; applying a second offset value to the second reference pixel of the second reference picture [See citations above with respect to a second offset value “o1” that can be applied to said second reference pixel value of a second reference picture corresponding to a second reference picture list 1. Also please see ¶0150-¶0151 and ¶0155-¶0156 regarding weighting factors and offset values]; and clipping a pixel value determined from the scaling the first reference pixel [Please refer to the Clip3 operator in equation 8-253 for clipping a pixel value from scaling (“w0”) the first reference pixel], the scaling the second reference pixel [Please refer to the Clip3 operator in equation 8-254 for clipping a pixel value from scaling (“w1”) the second reference pixel], the applying the first offset value [Eq. 8-253 further shows applying first offset value “o0”], and the applying the second offset value to a minimum pixel value or a maximum pixel value. [Eq. 8-254 further shows applying second offset value “o1”. The clipping operation clips the pixel values to a minimum pixel value of 0 or a maximum pixel value of ((1<<bitDepth)-1)]
Regarding claim 20, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, (Previously Presented) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Pu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing the input video comprises: scaling a reference pixel of a reference picture by the weighting factor [Weighting factors “w0” and “w1” for scaling a reference pixel value of a reference picture corresponding to a reference picture list 0 and a reference pictures list 1, i.e. “predSamplesL0[x][y] and “predSamplesL1[x][y]”, respectively (e.g. ¶0052-¶0056 and equations 8-253 thru 8-255]; applying the offset value to the reference pixel of the reference picture [Please refer to citations above regarding offset values. Similar support can also be found in ¶0150-¶0151 and ¶0155-¶0156 for both weighting factors and offset values]; and clipping a pixel value determined from the scaling and the applying to a minimum pixel value or a maximum pixel value.” [The Clip3 operator in equations 8-253 thru 8-255 clips the pixel values to a minimum pixel value of 0 or a maximum pixel value of ((1<<bitDepth)-1)]
Regarding claim 22, (Currently Amended) Pu, Pang, and Flynn further teach/suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. “A transmission method for a bitstream, comprising: generating the bitstream; and transmitting the bitstream [See fig. 1 with respect to a video encoder for generating a bitstream and transmitting said bitstream to a decoder of a destination device], wherein the bitstream is generated according to the method of claim 8.” [See citations of Pu and Pang in claim 1 above]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights