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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response to non-final, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to rejection 35 USC 102 of claim 15, has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection 35 USC 102 of claim 15 has been withdrawn in light of the newly amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the combination of references do not explicitly disclose A) the limitations of the claims as currently recited.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. At the onset, applicant’s representatives are reminded to view the references as a whole. Additionally, the indication of allowable subject matter applies to the entirety of the claim language and its incorporation into the independent claim language as stated during that round of prosecution. By removing the language that was addressed in the previous round of prosecution, and incorporating some of the claim elements from the indicated allowable claims, the scope of the claim has changed and would therefore not constitute the same language that was indicated as allowable. The claims as currently recited, require the determination of slice level maximum with respective to a first parameter. The claims as currently recited are silent with regards to the specificity of this parameter. Additionally, the claim as currently recited, merely requires a general association of the slice level maximum. More detail regarding the parameter and its association with the slice level is needed. Samuelson discloses a variety of parameters associated with the max_slice and the determining parameters values based on the determined values (see Samuelson 0275-0285). Hence the combination of references discloses the limitations of the claims as currently recited. Therefore, the rejection of the claims is maintained. See office action below.
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 (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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20160037170) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Samuelsson et al. (US20220272378) (hereinafter Samuelsson).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for encoding a video sequence, the method comprising: receiving a data stream comprising coded video data [Fig. 5, 0022-0024, 0068; bitstream with video data].
encoding the video sequence by: determining a first parameter of a coding block, wherein at least one of a delta quantization parameter (QP) value or a chroma QP offset value is determined according to the first parameter [0068-0080; frame data including multiple parameters including quantization offset]. Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units, determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing video coding data parameters including max hierarchy depth].
determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters. [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; dynamic determination of parameters and max level slice].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such an efficient coding technique for adaptive resolution change is achieved (see Samuelsson 0002-0005).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0300-0315, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses wherein the first parameter is signaled in at least one of the slice header or the picture header associated with the coding block [Fig. 5, 0022-0024, 0068; bitstream with video data including header].
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses a method for decoding a bitstream:
receiving a bitstream [Fig. 5, 0022-0024, 0068; bitstream with video data].
decoding the bitstream to generate a video sequence (0060; performing coding on data received from bitstream), the decoding comprising
determining a first parameter of a coding block, wherein at least one of a delta quantization parameter (QP) value or a chroma QP offset value is determined according to the first parameter [0060, 0068-0080; frame data including multiple parameters including quantization offset]. Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units, determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameter.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing video coding data parameters including max hierarchy depth].
determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameter. [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; dynamic determination of parameters and max level slice].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such an efficient coding technique for adaptive resolution change is achieved (see Samuelsson 0002-0005).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0300-0315, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses wherein the first parameter is signaled in at least one of the slice header or the picture header associated with the coding block [Fig. 5, 0022-0024, 0068; bitstream with video data including header].
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising:
receiving a video sequence [Fig. 5, 0022-0024, 0068; bitstream with video data].
encoding the video sequency by determining a first parameter of a coding block, wherein at least one of a delta quantization parameter (QP) value or a chroma QP offset value is determined according to the first parameter [0060, 0068-0080; frame data including multiple parameters including quantization offset].
transmitting a bitstream that is generated based on the encoding [0001-0003, 0016-0021; encoding and transmitting video data]. Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units, determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameter.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses determining, in a slice header or a picture header associated with the coding block, a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units and a maximum value of the first parameter based on a maximum hierarchy depth of coding units [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing video coding data parameters including max hierarchy depth].
determining a slice level maximum value associated with the first parameters; and determining the maximum of the first parameter according to the slice level maximum value associated with the first parameter [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; dynamic determination of parameters and max level slice].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson as stated above. By incorporating the teachings as such an efficient coding technique for adaptive resolution change is achieved (see Samuelsson 0002-0005).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an intra- prediction slice, and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the intra-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0329-0340, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the limitations of the claim. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice.
Samuelsson more explicitly discloses wherein the coding block is associated with an inter- prediction slice and the maximum value of the first parameter is determined in the slice header according to the inter-prediction slice [TBL3, Figs. 2-6, 0277-0287, 0300-0315, 0387-0395; slice header containing information including prediction information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Samuelsson for the same reasons as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,6, 11, 13,18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims including the resolution of any and all 35 USC 112/101 issues.
The prior arts of record individually nor in combination do not explicitly disclose splitting the maximum value of the first parameter into an intra slice element and an inter slice element; wherein the intra slice element is for an intra slice, and the inter slice element is for an inter slice and determining a luma QP value based on the delta QP value; determining a chroma QP value based on the chroma QP offset value, and processing the coding block based on the luma QP value and the chroma QP value, when taken in the environment of the independent claims.
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 TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm.
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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached on 571-272-7383. 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.
/TALHA M NAWAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights