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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Cheng fails to explicitly disclose, “store syntax element values based upon positions of syntax elements in a second coding tree unit located in a picture, a slice, or a tile,” as recited in claim 1.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. Cheng discloses two LCUs (610 and 620) located in the same LCU row and each LCU is partitioned into four CUs which can be seen in Fig. 6. FIG. 6 illustrates an example of data dependency on neighboring information for bin decoding, where the bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640) requires decoded information from left CU (642) and above CU (644). The decoded neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer. The neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs may be used by other CUs in the same LCU or other CUs in a neighboring LCU in the same LCU row. The decoded neighbor information used for context formation may comprise coding parameters such as pred mode, pcm_flag and intra_flag. [See Cheng, 0032].
As can be seen in Cheng, as an example, the current CU 640 in LCU 620 requires information from the left CU 642 in LCU 610. Thus, the decoded neighboring information from the left CU 642 is stored in the buffer. The decoded neighboring information is stored based on the position in the LCU. In the example above, the decoded neighboring information of the left CU 642 of the LCU 610 is stored in the buffer because the CU 640 in the LCU 620 requires that information. Therefore, the decoded neighboring information is stored based on the positions in the neighboring LCU.
Further, Cheng discloses that the neighbor information used for context formation may comprise coding parameters such as pred mode, pcm_flag and intra_flag [See Cheng, 0032]. The first short-term neighbor information associated with the current first processing unit comprises one or more first syntax elements of a left first processing unit, an above first processing unit or a previous first processing unit of the current first processing unit , and wherein the second short-term neighbor information associated with the current second processing unit comprises one or more second syntax elements of a left second processing unit, an above second processing unit or a previous second processing unit of the current second processing unit. [See Cheng, Claim 20]. Thus, the neighboring information being stored is syntax elements for the neighboring CUs based on the positions in the LCUs.
On pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “the proposed modification of Cheng in view of Chuang would eliminate Cheng's storage of the decoded information for the left LCU 610 in the short term neighbor buffer as described by Cheng. The proposed combination of Cheng and Chuang would therefore not teach, disclose, or suggest "at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: store syntax element values based upon positions of syntax elements in a second coding tree unit located in a picture, a slice, or a tile," as recited in claim 1.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. Firstly, Cheng discloses that the neighbor information may also be used by CUs in another LCU row. Since the picture may be processed from one LCU row and another LCU row. The neighbor information may need to be stored for a whole LCU row (e.g. above LCU row 630). Therefore, the neighbor information storage as required for other LCU row or other macroblock row is referred as “neighbor data storage”, which is much long term than that stored in the short term neighbor buffer. [See Cheng, 0032]. Thus, in regards to the buffer of Cheng, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the buffer for the neighboring information could be long term and/or short term buffers.
Secondly, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, references are in the same field of video decoding/coding with the data dependency of CABAC/context model states between video blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Cheng with the explicit inheritance of multiple CUs throughout different CTUs in the picture as taught by Chuang.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
On pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “the only reason provided for the proposed modification of Cheng in view of Chuang, "to improve the performance of the coding system," is improper as being a mere conclusory statement provided without any reasoning. Id. at p. 7. … obviousness"). Further, Applicant cannot identify any performance improvement over Cheng as unmodified that would be achieved by the particular modification of Cheng in view of Chuang proposed in the Office Action. The rejection should therefore be withdrawn as failing to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. In regards to the motivation, “to improve the performance of the coding system,” used for the motivation to combine Cheng and Chuang, the Examiner would like to clarify the motivation.
Cheng discloses that context based entropy coding, the bin encoding and decoding will rely on neighboring coded and decoded information respectively. The decoding of a current CU dependent on neighboring CUs information, wherein the neighboring CUs information that the CU is dependent on (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) are stored in a short term or long term buffer. The neighboring CU can be from a different LCU and/or a different LCU row in the picture. The decoded neighbor information used for context formation may comprise coding parameters such as pred mode, pcm_flag and intra_flag [See Cheng, 0032]. The stored neighboring data and syntax information is used in the context model update [See Cheng, 0028 and 0034]. Cheng discloses that the processing efficiency is improved through the teachings of the invention.
Chuang discloses that one or more syntax elements of each block of the current image can be coded using arithmetic coding, and states of arithmetic coding, such as CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding), for the beginning block of the current image area can inherit the states of the selected block in the preceding image area. [See Chuang, Col. 3]. At the start of each CTU row, the CABAC states are initialized based on the CABAC states of the synchronization point in upper CTU row. An example of WPP for CABAC is shown in FIG. 1, where the parallel processing is applied to CTU rows. Furthermore, it is assumed in this example that the palette coding of each current CTU (marked as “X” in FIG. 1) depends on its left, above-left, above and above-right CTUs. For the top CTU row, the palette processing is dependent on the left CTU only. The synchronization point is the last CU of the second CTU from the upper CTU row. [See Chuang, Col. 13]. Chuang discloses that the performance of the prediction occurring in the system is improved through the teachings.
Cheng discloses the storing of the neighboring CUs information for the current CU which can be in a different LCU and/or a different LCU row. Chuang discloses the inheritance of information across different CTU rows, slices, or tiles for multiple CUs. 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 the teachings of Cheng's storing of neighboring information for the left CU and above CU in the neighboring CTU (LCU) to the current CTU with the explicit inheritance of multiple CUs throughout different CTUs in the picture as taught by Chuang in order to improve the performance of the coding system [See Chuang].
The motivational statement shows that a prima facie case supporting the obviousness rejection of the claims has been established through at least the rationale G listed below. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that '"[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: ... (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141, Section III.
On page 11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that, “Cheng and Chuang fail to teach, disclose, or suggest "storing syntax element values based upon positions of syntax elements in a second coding tree unit located in a picture, a slice, or a tile," as recited in independent claim 15, and "storing syntax element values based upon positions of syntax elements in a second coding tree unit located in a picture, a slice, or a tile," as recited in independent claim 20. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Cheng and Chuang, individually or in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest each and every element of claims 1, 15, and 20, and claims 1, 15, and 20 represent allowable subject matter.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s Remarks. Please see the above responses to the remarks regarding independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al. (Hereafter, “Cheng”) [US 2016/0227216 A1] in view of Chuang et al. (Hereafter, “Chuang”) [US 10,979,726 B2].
In regards to claim 1, Cheng discloses an apparatus ([Abstract] apparatus) comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [Fig. 1 and 2], cause the apparatus at least to: store syntax element values based upon positions of syntax elements in a second coding tree unit located in a picture, a slice, or a tile ([0004] a largest CU (LCU), which is also referred as coded tree unit (CTU) in HEVC [0032 and Fig. 6] The neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer. Accordingly, the buffer for storing decoded information from neighboring CUs in the same LCU or other CUs in a neighboring LCU in the same LCU row is referred as “short term neighbor buffer”. The decoded neighbor information used for context formation may comprise coding parameters such as pred mode, pcm_flag and intra_flag.); determine to start to encode or decode a first coding tree unit located in the picture, the slice, or the tile ([0032] The bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640). The processing order within each LCU is indicated by the arrows.), wherein the second coding tree unit is at least partially different from the first coding tree unit ([Fig. 6] left CU (642) is in LCU (610) and the current coding unit (640) is in LCU (620)), and wherein the second coding tree unit comprises a previously encoded or decoded coding tree unit ([Fig. 6 and 0032] decoded information from left CU (642)); in response to determining to start to encode or decode the first coding tree unit ([Fig. 6] LCU (620)), determine at least one of the stored syntax element values based, at least partially, on a location of the first coding tree unit in the picture, the slice, or the tile ([0032] The bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640) requires decoded information from left CU (642) and above CU (644). In order to improve processing efficiency, the neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer.); and update at least one state variable of the apparatus based, at least partially, on the at least one stored syntax element value, wherein the at least one stored syntax element value is fed to an arithmetic coding engine update process ([0028] In step 440, a context model is determined based on neighboring data and syntax information is decoded. In step 450, the syntax bin is decoded. In step 460, the context model is updated. [0034] The context model update unit (733, 743) is used to generate new context model and update context model stored in context local buffer (731, 741) during bin decoding. The bin decode unit (735, 745) performs the task of binary arithmetic decoding or bypass decoding using the updated context model from the context model update unit (733, 743).).
Chuang discloses an apparatus ([Abstract] A method and apparatus perform palette coding of a block of video data by initializing the palette or triplet palette or using a selected palette or triplet palette from a preceding image area for the beginning block of the current image area.) comprising: at least one processor ([Col. 16] The input data may be retrieved from memory (e.g., computer memory, buffer (RAM or DRAM) or other media) or from a processor.); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor ([Col. 16] The input data may be retrieved from memory (e.g., computer memory, buffer (RAM or DRAM) or other media) or from a processor. [Col. 17] Embodiment of the present invention as described above may be implemented in various hardware, software codes, or a combination of both. For example, an embodiment of the present invention can be a circuit integrated into a video compression chip or program code integrated into video compression software to perform the processing described herein. An embodiment of the present invention may also be program code to be executed on a Digital Signal Processor (DSP) to perform the processing described herein. The invention may also involve a number of functions to be performed by a computer processor, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, or field programmable gate array (FPGA). These processors can be configured to perform particular tasks according to the invention, by executing machine-readable software code or firmware code that defines the particular methods embodied by the invention. The software code or firmware code may be developed in different programming languages and different formats or styles. The software code may also be compiled for different target platforms. However, different code formats, styles and languages of software codes and other means of configuring code to perform the tasks in accordance with the invention will not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention.), cause the apparatus at least to: ([Col. 13 and Fig. 1] In FIG. 1, each block stands for one CTU and there are four CTU rows in a picture. Each CTU row forms a wavefront substream that can be processed independently by an encoding or a decoding thread. The “X” symbols represent the current CTU under processing for the multiple threads. [Fig. 1] top right X in Wavefront 1), wherein the second coding tree unit is at least partially different from the first coding tree unit ([Col. 13 and Fig. 1] the last CU (indicated by “p4”) of the left CTU), and wherein the second coding tree unit comprises a previously encoded or decoded coding tree unit ([Col. 13 and Fig. 1] As shown in FIG. 1, a first CU (indicated by “p3”) in a current CTU has to wait for the last CU (indicated by “p4”) of the left CTU to finish. Again, the dependency is indicated by a curved arrow line pointing from “p3” to “p4”. Similar dependency on the left CTU is indicated by curved arrows for the CTU being process (indicated by “X”).); in response to determining to start to encode or decode the first coding tree unit, determine at least one of the stored syntax element values based, at least partially, on a location of the first coding tree unit in the picture, the slice, or the tile ([Col. 15] Inherit the last coded palette from the CU according to the CABAC synchronization point in WPP.); and update at least one state variable of the apparatus based, at least partially, on the at least one stored syntax element value ([Col. 15] In HEVC, at the start of each CTU row, the CABAC states are initialized based on the CABAC states of the synchronization point in the upper CTU row. The position of the synchronization point in upper CTU row can be defined in PPS. According to this embodiment, the synchronization position of CABAC initialization and the inheritance position of the last coded palette initialization are unified. At the beginning of each CTU row, the initial palette colors for the last coded palette of the beginning CU in the current CTU row are copied from the updated last coded palette of the CU at the CABAC synchronization point in upper CTU row. For example, in FIG. 1, the last CU of the second CTU from the upper CTU row is the CABAC synchronization point (labelled as “p2”). In FIG. 2, the updated last coded palette of the last CU (labelled as “B”) of the second CTU (i.e., the above-right CTU of the current CTU) from the upper CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette. The CU for states of CABAC synchronization point and the CU for the beginning CU to inherit palette/triplet palette predictors are unified.),
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 teachings of Cheng’s storing of neighboring information for the left CU and above CU in the neighboring CTU (LCU) to the current CTU with the explicit inheritance of multiple CUs throughout different CTUs in the picture as taught by Chuang in order to improve the performance of the coding system [See Chuang].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng discloses wherein the at least one stored syntax element value comprises, at least, a value of a syntax element of the syntax elements in the second coding tree unit, the syntax element belonging to a coding unit within the second coding tree unit [0032 and Fig. 6]; and the instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine the value of the syntax element ([0010] the syntax elements are binarizes into bins wherein the value of the bin is known); determine a location of the coding unit within the second coding tree unit ([0032 and Fig. 6] locations of the CUs are known/determined); and store the value of the syntax element in response to the location of the coding unit meeting at least one predetermined criteria ([0032] The bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640) requires decoded information from left CU (642) and above CU (644). In order to improve processing efficiency, the neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer.).
Chuang discloses determine the value of the syntax element ([Col. 3] One or more syntax elements of each block of the current image can be coded using arithmetic coding, and states of arithmetic coding, such as CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding), for the beginning block of the current image area can inherit the states of the selected block in the preceding image area. [Col. 13-16] palette value of the coding unit); determine a location of the coding unit within the second coding tree unit ([Col. 3-4] When the selected palette or triplet palette is used as the palette predictor, the selected block may also correspond to a selected CU in a selected CTU in the preceding image area located above a beginning CTU in the current image area, wherein the beginning CTU containing the beginning block. The selected CU in the selected CTU can be predefined, such as to a nearest CU with respect to the beginning block. [Col. 13-16] position of the CU for a previously coded CTU); and store the value of the syntax element in response to the location of the coding unit meeting at least one predetermined criteria ([Col. 15-16] Consequently, the palette of the first palette coded CU in the bottom CU row of the above CTU (i.e., CU-a if available, otherwise CU-b if available, etc.) is stored until it is accessed and used when coding the first palette coded CU in the current or following CTU row.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng with teachings of Chuang in order to improve the performance of the coding system [See Chuang].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Cheng discloses wherein the location of the coding unit within the second coding tree unit is proximate the location of the first coding tree unit ([Fig. 6] left CU 642 in LCU 610 is located next to LCU 620).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Cheng discloses wherein the at least one predetermined criteria comprises at least one of: the location of the coding unit being at a bottom of the second coding tree unit, the location of the coding unit being at a left-most bottom coding unit of the second coding tree unit, the location of the coding unit being a location in a bottom left half of the second coding tree unit, or the location of the coding unit being a location in a bottom right half of the second coding tree unit ([0032] the neighbor information associated with the bottom right CU 642 in LCU 610 is stored in the buffer).
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed below. Cheng discloses wherein the at least one stored syntax element value further comprises at least one of: one or more stored syntax element values of bottom coding units in a coding tree unit above the first coding tree unit ([0032] The neighbor information may also be used by CUs in another LCU row. Since the picture may be processed from one LCU row and another LCU row. The neighbor information may need to be stored for a whole LCU row (e.g. above LCU row 630). Therefore, the neighbor information storage as required for other LCU row or other macroblock row is referred as “neighbor data storage”, which is much long term than that stored in the short term neighbor buffer.), or one or more stored syntax element values of bottom coding units in a coding tree unit above-left the first coding tree unit.
In regards to claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng discloses wherein the at least one stored syntax element value comprises at least one of: one or more stored syntax element values of bottom coding units in the second coding tree unit ([0032] The bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640) requires decoded information from left CU (642) and above CU (644). In order to improve processing efficiency, the neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer.), or one or more stored syntax element values of bottom-right coding units in the second coding tree unit; and the second coding tree unit is spatially located above the first coding tree unit in a picture ([0032] The neighbor information may also be used by CUs in another LCU row. Since the picture may be processed from one LCU row and another LCU row. The neighbor information may need to be stored for a whole LCU row (e.g. above LCU row 630). Therefore, the neighbor information storage as required for other LCU row or other macroblock row is referred as “neighbor data storage”, which is much long term than that stored in the short term neighbor buffer.).
Cheng discloses the storing of neighboring information in the same LCU row or the above LCU row. The processing order can be seen in Fig. 6 of Cheng, wherein the top-left CU of the LCU is processed first. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the top-left CU would require neighboring information from the above CU and the left CU just as the bottom-left CU required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that the neighboring information from the above CU would in the above LCU row which is above the LCU 620. [See Cheng, 0032 and Fig. 6].
In regards to claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein no coding tree units in the picture, the slice, or the tile are located above the first coding tree unit, wherein the second coding tree unit is to a right of the first coding tree unit, and wherein the at least one stored syntax element value comprises one or more stored syntax element values of a right side of the second coding tree unit.
Chuang discloses wherein no coding tree units in the picture, the slice, or the tile are located above the first coding tree unit, wherein the second coding tree unit is to a right of the first coding tree unit, and wherein the at least one stored syntax element value comprises one or more stored syntax element values of a right side of the second coding tree unit ([Col. 16 and Fig. 3] In another example, if none of the CUs in the bottom row of above CTU is palette coded, the CUs in the bottom CU row of above-right CTU will be checked, from left to right, the palette of the first palette coded CU is used for current CTU row initialization. If none of the CUs in the bottom CU row of above-right CTU is palette coded, the CUs in the bottom CU row of the CTU on the right side of the above-right CTU will be checked, from left to right. If a palette coded CU is found, the palette of the first palette coded CU is used for the current CTU row initialization.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng with teachings of Chuang in order to improve the performance of the coding system [See Chuang].
In regards to claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng discloses wherein the at least one state variable is updated based, at least partially, on at least one characteristic of the first coding tree unit ([0028] In step 440, a context model is determined based on neighboring data and syntax information is decoded. In step 450, the syntax bin is decoded. In step 460, the context model is updated. [0034] The context model update unit (733, 743) is used to generate new context model and update context model stored in context local buffer (731, 741) during bin decoding. The bin decode unit (735, 745) performs the task of binary arithmetic decoding or bypass decoding using the updated context model from the context model update unit (733, 743).), and wherein the at least one characteristic of the first coding tree unit comprises at least one of: a location of the first coding tree unit in the picture, and the slice, or the tile, or a location of a current coding unit in the first coding tree unit ([0032] The bin decoding process for the current coding unit (640) requires decoded information from left CU (642) and above CU (644). In order to improve processing efficiency, the neighbor information associated with neighboring CUs (i.e., the left CU and the above CU) is temporarily stored in a buffer.).
Claim 15 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 16 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim 18 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim 19 lists all the same elements of claim 8, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Chuang in even further view of Zhu et al. (Hereafter, “Zhu”) [US 2023/0016377 A1].
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the value of the syntax element is stored in a syntax element value storage, wherein the syntax element value storage comprises at least one of: an array, a matrix, a vector, or a list.
Zhu discloses wherein the value of the syntax element is stored in a syntax element value storage, wherein the syntax element value storage comprises at least one of: an array, a matrix, a vector, or a list ([0686] The array PaletteIndexIdc[i] stores the i-th palette_index_idc explicitly signalled or inferred.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cheng with the palette index for the coding unit to be stored in an array as taught by Zhu in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images [See Zhu].
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the value of the syntax element is stored based, at least partially, on at least one of: a number of stored syntax element values associated with the first coding tree, or a number of stored syntax element values associated with the syntax element.
Zhu discloses wherein the value of the syntax element is stored based, at least partially, on at least one of: a number of stored syntax element values associated with the first coding tree, or a number of stored syntax element values associated with the syntax element ([0686] palette_index_idc is an indication of an index to the array represented by CurrentPaletteEntries. The value of palette_index_idc shall be in the range of 0 to MaxPaletteIndex, inclusive, for the first index in the block and in the range of 0 to (MaxPaletteIndex−1), inclusive, for the remaining indices in the block. The variable PaletteIndexIdc[i] stores the i-th palette_index_idc explicitly signalled or inferred. The variable MaxPaletteIndex specifies the maximum possible value for a palette index for the current coding unit. The value of MaxPaletteIndex is set equal to CurrentPaletteSize+palette_escape_val_present_flag if the cu_palette_ibc_mode is 0. Otherwise, if the cu_palette_ibc_mode is 1, the MaxPaletteIndex is set equal to CurrentPaletteSize+palette_escape_val_present_flag+1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cheng with the palette indexes to have a maximum amount to be stored in the array as taught by Zhu in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images [See Zhu].
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Chuang in further view of LI et al. (Hereafter, “Li”) [US 2023/0345004 A1].
In regards to claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein updating the at least one state variable comprises averaging a current value of the at least one state variable with the at least one stored syntax element value.
Li discloses wherein updating the at least one state variable comprises averaging a current value of the at least one state variable with the at least one stored syntax element value ([0072] A probability estimate of pStateIdx can be an average of estimates from the two hypotheses (e.g., pStateIdx0 and pStateIdx1).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cheng with the use of the average of the estimates for the probability state estimation as taught by Li in order to improve the accuracy of the probability estimation [See Li].
In regards to claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one state variable comprises a short-term estimator.
Li discloses wherein the at least one state variable comprises a short-term estimator ([0072-0073] pStateIdx0).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chuang with the use of pStateIdx0 as a probability estimate as taught by Li in order to improve the accuracy of the probability estimation [See Li].
In regards to claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chuang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a maximum number of the at least one stored syntax element value is based, at least partially, on at least one of: a frame quantization parameter, a slice quantization parameter, or a level of the apparatus.
Li discloses disclose wherein a maximum number of the at least one stored syntax element value is based, at least partially, on at least one of: a frame quantization parameter, a slice quantization parameter, or a level of the apparatus ([0042] Also necessary for compliance can be that the complexity of the coded video sequence is within bounds as defined by the level of the video compression technology or standard. In some cases, levels restrict the maximum picture size, maximum frame rate, maximum reconstruction sample rate (measured in, for example megasamples per second), maximum reference picture size, and so on. Limits set by levels can, in some cases, be further restricted through Hypothetical Reference Decoder (HRD) specifications and metadata for HRD buffer management signaled in the coded video sequence.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chuang with the use of level limits for buffer management as taught by Li in order to improve the CABAC efficiency [See Li].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Chuang in even further view of Mukherjee [US 9,774,856 B1].
In regards to claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Cheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein updating the at least one state variable determining a weighted sum of a current value of the at least one state variable and the at least one stored syntax element value.
Mukherjee discloses wherein updating the at least one state variable determining a weighted sum of a current value of the at least one state variable and the at least one stored syntax element value ([Col. 10] the adapted probabilities are determined through the sum of the weighted current probabilities and the forward updated probabilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Cheng with the use of the weighted sum of the current probability and the forward update probability to determine the adaptive probability as taught by Mukherjee in order to improve the encoding and/or decoding of different portions of the data stream [See Mukherjee].
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights