6Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims and originally presented claims have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20230336728 A1) in view of Chien et al (US 20130114673 A1) and XIU et al (US 20240348785 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of decoding a bitstream associated with a video sequence [e.g. FIG. 8 and 12; decoding coded video sequence], the method comprising: selecting, from a plurality of predefined sets of probability parameters [e.g. [0136]; weighting factors can be predefined], a first set of probability parameters [e.g. FIG. 12; a weighted average is based on probability] for initiating one or more context models for a slice [e.g. the context model is initialized according to the weighted average]; and performing entropy decoding of the slice based on the one or more context models and the first set of probability parameters [e.g. FIG. 12; S1240], wherein the selecting is based on a coding condition of the B-slice or a signal in the bitstream [e.g. [0136]; weighting factors can be predefined or signaled in the bitstream].
Although Li discloses initializing probability of context model at the beginning of each slice [e.g. FIG. 10-12; [0129-0132 and 0136]]; it is noted that Li differs to the present invention in that Li fails to explicitly disclose the detail of the initialization.
However, Chien teaches the well-known concept of initiating one or more context models for a B-slice [e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 6; determining binarization for B-slice], and performing entropy decoding of the B-slice based on the one or more context models and probability parameters [e.g. FIG. 2-3 and 6-7; entropy encoding/decoding B-slices], a selecting of context model is based on low-delay condition of the B-slice [TABLE 2-4 and 10-12; modified CABAC initialization for low delay B slices].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Li to exploit the well-known decoding B-slice technique taught by Chien as above, in order to provide a reduction in the number of binarizations and/or contexts used in context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) for video coding [See Chien; abstract and [0006]].
Moreover, XIU teaches the well-known concept of a decoding method [e.g. FIG. 2 and 7] comprising selecting, from a plurality of predefined sets of probability parameters [e.g. [0071-0075]; adaptation parameters associated with the two probability], a first set of probability parameters for initiating one or more context models for a B-slice [e.g. initialize the state parameters of the contexts slice type can be B-slice], the first set of probability parameters comprising at least one of: an initial probability for use with the one or more context models, an adaptation rate of the one or more context models [e.g. [0081]; initialize the state parameters of the contexts (e.g., the two probability estimators, the adaptation rates and the weighting factors], or an adjusted probability for use with the one or more context models.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Li to exploit the well-known decoding B-slice technique taught by Chien and the well-known probability estimation for the context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) technique taught by XIU as above, in order to provide a reduction in the number of binarizations and/or contexts used in context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) for video coding [See Chien; abstract and [0006]] and improved accuracy of probability estimation module for the context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) [See XIU; [0001]].
Regarding claim 2, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose the first set of probability parameters further comprises at least one of: a plurality of weights that is respectively associated with a plurality of probabilities [e.g. Li: FIG. 10-12; weighting factors; Chien: FIG. 2 and 6; TABLE 2-4 and 10-12; XIU: FIG. 2, 5 and 7].
Regarding claim 3, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose the selecting is further based on at least one of a quantization parameter (QP) [e.g. Li: FIG. 7 and 10-11; binarization for quantization step; Chien: FIG. 1 and 6; XIU: FIG. 2, 5 and 7], a temporal identifier, or a rate cost associated with the B-slice.
Regarding claim 4, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose the selecting is further based on a signal in the bitstream a flag or a parameter in the bitstream [e.g. Li: [0136]; weighting factors can be predefined or signaled in the bitstream; XIU: FIG. 2, 5 and 7].
Regarding claim 5, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose the selecting is based on a flag signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, or a slice header [e.g. Li: FIG. 11-12; [0156]; a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, and a slice header].
Regarding claim 7, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose the plurality of predefined sets of probability parameters comprises two predefined sets of probability parameters for the B-slice [e.g. Li: FIG. 12; [0136]; weighting factors can be predefined or signaled in the bitstream; Chien: FIG. 1 and 6; XIU: FIG. 2, 5 and 7].
Regarding claim 8-12 and 14, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 1-5 and 7 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15-19, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 8-12 above respective, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20230336728 A1) in view of Chien et al (US 20130114673 A1), XIU et al (US 20240348785 A1) and Takashima et al (US 6438169 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Li, Chien and XIU further disclose decoding the flag or parameter used for encoding the B-slice [e.g. Li: FIG. 8 and 12; Chien: FIG. 2 and 6; XIU: FIG. 2, 5 and 7], but Li and Chien fail to disclose a flag for a low delay condition.
However, Takashima teaches the well-known concept of decoding a flag [e.g. FIG. 4 and 11; flag low_delay] or parameter has a value [e.g. low_delay flag is set = “1”] dependent on whether a low delay condition or a non-low delay condition [e.g. column 10 lines 49-52].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Li to exploit the well-known decoding B-slice technique taught by Chien, the well-known probability estimation for the context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) technique taught by XIU and the well-known video compression technique taught by Takashima as above, in order to provide a reduction in the number of binarizations and/or contexts used in context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) for video coding [See Chien; abstract and [0006]], improved accuracy of probability estimation module for the context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) [See XIU; [0001]] and reduced number of operations for multiplexing compressed data [See Takashima; column 13 lines 49-54].
Regarding claim 13, this is an encoding method that includes same limitation as in claim 1-5 and 6 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 13 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cha et at (US 20060233240 A1).
KIRCHHOFFER et al (US 20220239924 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights