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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks entered on 11/05/2025.
Claims 1-11, 13-37, 39-57 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-2, 4, 13, 16-19, 27, 30-33, 35, 37, and 52 are amended.
Claims 56-57 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 11/05/2025, pages 4-5, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 37 & 52 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable by Karczewicz et al. (US 2020/0077117 A1) (hereinafter Karczewicz) in view of Shima (US 2013/0287107 A1) (hereinafter Shima) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1, 37 & 52 below, wherein Applicant’s newly-recited limitations are addressed by Shima for the reasons as outlined below.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains phrases in the alternative, making the reading go into the Specification, and exceeds 150 words. Specifically, the amended Abstract recites, “[a] flexible coefficient coding (FCC) approach is presented.” Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 37 & 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz et al. (US 2020/0077117 A1) (hereinafter Karczewicz) in view of Shima (US 2013/0287107 A1) (hereinafter Shima).
Regarding claim 1, Karczewicz discloses a video coding method, comprising:
coding an input block of video content according to an operation yielding a block of coefficients [Paragraph [0044]-[0049], [0062], [0091]-[0093], coding of TU as block of video, as block of coefficients],
organizing the block of coefficients into a plurality of coding groups [Paragraph [0044]-[0049], [0062], [0091]-[0093], TU divided into non-overlapped subblocks called coding groups (CGs) or coefficient groups],
coding the coefficients of each of the coding groups according to coding rules, the coding rules varying between the coding groups [Paragraph [0043]-[0049], [0118]-[0150], coefficients are coded in three passes using regular bins, unary, rice, and Exp-Golomb].
However, Karczewicz does not disclose wherein the input block is a transform unit according to a coding protocol for the video coding.
Shima teaches wherein the input block is a transform unit according to a coding protocol for the video coding [Paragraph [0075], coded data is output into the entropy decoding unit 703. The entropy decoding unit 703 decodes a coefficient value to output it. The coefficient value is input into the inverse quantization/inverse transform unit 704].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhou to integrate the teachings in Shima, realizing highly efficient coding/decoding of intra prediction mode information by reducing a coded amount required for identification of a mode (Shima, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 37, Karczewicz discloses a video decoding method, comprising:
identifying portions of coded video that correspond to different decoding groups of a block of coded coefficients [Paragraph [0094]-[0126], syntax elements parsed from bitstream, identifying different subblocks of TUs or CGs],
decoding a first portion of coded video corresponding to a decoding group according to a first decoding rule [Paragraph [0094]-[0126], syntax elements parsed from bitstream through first pass to decode via regular bins],
decoding a second portion of coded video corresponding to a decoding group according to a second decoding rule [Paragraph [0094]-[0126], syntax elements parsed from bitstream through second pass to decode via Rice parameter],
assembling a block of decoded coefficients from the decoded first and second portions of coded video, and applying the assembled block of coefficients to another block decoding process [Paragraph [0094]-[0126] & [0140]-[0146], All remaining levels of coefficient after first and second passes are decoding using remaining level coding using Rice/Golomb coding combination].
However Karczewicz does not disclose wherein the coefficients are coded transform coefficients, wherein the decoded first portion of coded video includes inverse transformed coefficients, wherein the decoded second portion of coded video includes inverse transformed coefficients
Shimta teaches wherein the coefficients are coded transform coefficients, wherein the decoded first portion of coded video includes inverse transformed coefficients, wherein the decoded second portion of coded video includes inverse transformed coefficients [Paragraph [0074]-[0075], coded data is output into the entropy decoding unit 703 comprising inverse transform units. The entropy decoding unit 703 decodes a coefficient value to output it. The coefficient value is input into the inverse quantization/ inverse transform unit 704].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhou to integrate the teachings in Shima, realizing highly efficient coding/decoding of intra prediction mode information by reducing a coded amount required for identification of a mode (Shima, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 52, Karczewicz discloses a method, comprising:
organizing a prediction unit into a plurality of coding groups [Paragraph [0075]-[0077], In general, video encoder 200 selects an intra-prediction mode that describes neighboring samples to a current block (e.g., a block of a CU) from which to predict samples of the current block. Such samples may generally be above, above and to the left, or to the left of the current block in the same picture as the current block, assuming video encoder 200 codes CTUs and CUs in raster scan order (left to right, top to bottom)],
coding each of the coding groups according to a respective set of coding rules that are different from each other [Paragraph [0043]-[0049], [0118]-[0150], coefficients are coded in three passes using regular bins, unary, rice, and Exp-Golomb], including applying a different transform type to content of the different coding groups [Paragraph [0077], For example, video encoder 200 may apply a discrete cosine transform (DCT), an integer transform, a wavelet transform, or a conceptually similar transform to residual video data. Additionally, video encoder 200 may apply a secondary transform following the first transform, such as a mode-dependent non-separable secondary transform (MDNSST), a signal dependent transform, a Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT), or the like.].
However Karczewicz does not disclose wherein the input block is a prediction unit according to a coding protocol for the video coding.
Shima teaches wherein the input block is a prediction unit according to a coding protocol for the video coding [Paragraph [0074]-[0075], coded data is output into the entropy decoding unit 703 comprising inverse transform units and intra/inter prediction].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhou to integrate the teachings in Shima, realizing highly efficient coding/decoding of intra prediction mode information by reducing a coded amount required for identification of a mode (Shima, Paragraph [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 13, 27 & 30 allowed.
Claims 3, 5-11, 14-26, 28-29, 31-36, 39-51, 53-57 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.
Claims 2-11, 13-36, 39-51 & 53-57 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
