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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 11-12 and 20 have been cancelled, and new claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-19 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-10, 13-19 and 21-23 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Some of applicant’s arguments are moot because they apply to amended limitations which are being rejected as indefinite for following the phrase “zero or more”. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase and in all the subsequent dependent claims are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Applicant argues that the combination of Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. fail to teach “selecting a context from a set of candidate contexts for entropy decoding the skip transform flag, the context being selected based on a prediction mode of the current transform block”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 10, Zhu et al. teaches “In yet another exemplary aspect, a method for visual media processing is disclosed. The method includes parsing a bitstream representation of a visual media data comprising a video region comprising a current video block to identify a context of a sign flag used in a transform skip mode in which a residual of a prediction error between the current video block and a reference video block is represented in the bitstream representation without applying a transform; and generating the decoded video region from the bitstream representation such that the context of the sign flag is according to sign flags of one or more neighboring video blocks in a coefficient group associated with the current video block based upon division of the current video block into a plurality of coefficient groups.” In Paragraph 11, Zhu et al. teaches “In yet another exemplary aspect, a method for visual media processing is disclosed. The method includes determining a position of a current coefficient associated with a current video block of visual media data when the current video block is divided into a plurality of coefficient positions; deriving, at least based on sign flags of one or more neighboring coefficients, a context of a sign flag for the current coefficient; and generating, based on the context, a sign flag for the current coefficient, wherein the sign flag of the current coefficient is used in a transform skip mode in which the current video block is coded without applying a transform.” In Paragraph 256, Zhu et al. explicitly teaches a transform skip flag, “whether to apply the transform skip flag on the same block is true. Alternatively, if the indication of whether to apply transform skip flag on a luma and/or chroma block is true, the indication of whether to apply QR-BDPCM on the same block may be inferred to true”. The above limitations are interpreted to meet the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In light of the above remarks the claims are rejected using the same art as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10, 13-19 and 21-23 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, 15, and 21, the phrase "zero or more" renders these claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations and those in the following dependent claims which refer to those limitations are treated in the rejection below but are not given patentable weight. Applicant is required to correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-10, 13-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20170026645 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20210385439 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou et al. teaches a method for decoding a current block in a video bitstream, performed by a decoder (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving the video bitstream comprising a current transform block in a current block of a current picture (Paragraph 38; Paragraph 44);
identifying an entropy-coded a skip transform flag indicating whether the current transform block has all zero coefficient (Paragraph 41; Paragraph 54; Paragraphs 64-67; Paragraphs 95-96); and
and reconstructing the current block based on the skip transform flag (Paragraphs 61-62; Paragraph 73).
However, Zhou et al. does not explicitly teach “selecting a context from a set of candidate contexts for entropy decoding the skip transform flag, the context being selected based on a prediction mode of the current transform block and zero or more of: a quantization index information for the current transform block; whether the current transform block is calculated by a secondary transform that is applied jointly on a transform block of a second component, the second component being different from a first component to which the current transform block belongs; and whether the current transform block is an output of a transform applied jointly on a residual block of the first component and a residual block of the second component; wherein respective contexts of the set of candidate contexts are mapped to different prediction modes, the different prediction modes including a set of directional intra prediction modes, a set of non-directional intra prediction modes, and a set of inter prediction modes; entropy decoding the entropy-coded skip transform flag using the derived context”.
Zhu et al., however, teaches selecting a context from a set of candidate contexts for entropy decoding the skip transform flag and zero or more of: a quantization index information for the current transform block; whether the current transform block is calculated by a secondary transform that is applied jointly on a transform block of a second component, the second component being different from a first component to which the current transform block belongs; and whether the current transform block is an output of a transform applied jointly on a residual block of the first component and a residual block of the second component; wherein respective contexts of the set of candidate contexts are mapped to different prediction modes, the different prediction modes including a set of directional intra prediction modes, a set of non-directional intra prediction modes, and a set of inter prediction modes (Paragraphs 10-11; Paragraphs 199-204; Paragraphs 255-257; Paragraph 435); and
entropy decoding the entropy-coded skip transform flag using the derived context (Paragraph 458).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49)
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the different prediction modes further include at least one of: a derived intra prediction mode; or a prediction mode that references the current picture which comprises at least one of: an intra block copy mode, or an intra template matching mode.
Zhu et al. however teaches wherein the different prediction modes further include at least one of: a derived intra prediction mode; or a prediction mode that references the current picture which comprises at least one of: an intra block copy mode, or an intra template matching mode (Paragraph 11; Paragraphs 199-204; Paragraph 232; Paragraph 435).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode using a block vector to identify a prediction block in a reconstructed area of the same picture, wherein the block vector is signaled in the video bitstream or derived by a decoder.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode using a block vector to identify a prediction block in a reconstructed area of the same picture, wherein the block vector is signaled in the video bitstream or derived by a decoder (Paragraph 435).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the different prediction modes further include at least one of: a combined inter-intra prediction mode; or a prediction mode using a block vector to identify a prediction block in a reconstructed area of the same picture.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein wherein the different prediction modes further include at least one of: a combined inter-intra prediction mode; or a prediction mode using a block vector to identify a prediction block in a reconstructed area of the same picture. (Paragraph 11; Paragraph 199-204; Paragraph 232; Paragraph 435; Paragraph 458).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the different prediction modes further include a cross component prediction mode.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the different prediction modes further include a cross component prediction mode (Paragraph 131-132).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode which is derived by using texture analysis of previously decoded neighboring pixels.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode which is derived by using texture analysis of previously decoded neighboring pixels (Paragraphs 11; Paragraphs 93-100; Paragraph 199-204; Paragraphs 232; Paragraph 435; Paragraph 458).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode which is derived by using weighted average of multiple prediction modes.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the different prediction modes further include a prediction mode which is derived by using weighted average of multiple prediction modes (Paragraphs 11; Paragraph 199-204; Paragraphs 232; Paragraph 435; Paragraph 450; Paragraph 458; Paragraphs 648-650).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the set of inter prediction modes includes deriving the context for entropy decoding the skip transform flag comprises: a single-prediction inter prediction mode, and a compound-prediction inter prediction mode.
Zhu et al., however, teaches the set of inter prediction modes includes deriving the context for entropy decoding the skip transform flag comprises: a single-prediction inter prediction mode, and a compound-prediction inter prediction mode (Paragraph 11; Paragraph 199-204; Paragraph 232).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the context being selected is further based on at least one of: a block size of the current transform block; or a value of a flag associated with a decoded neighboring transform block of the current transform block indicating whether the decoded neighboring transform block has any nonzero coefficient.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the context being selected is further based on at least one of: a block size of the current transform block; or a value of a flag associated with a decoded neighboring transform block of the current transform block indicating whether the decoded neighboring transform block has any nonzero coefficient (Paragraphs 435-436).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 9, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein when the prediction mode of the current transform block is an inter prediction mode, the context is selected based on the value of the flag associated with the decoded neighboring transform block, when the prediction mode of the current transform block is not the inter prediction mode, the context is not based on the value of the flag associated with the decoded neighboring transform block.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein when the prediction mode of the current transform block is an inter prediction mode, the context is selected based on the value of the flag associated with the decoded neighboring transform block, when the prediction mode of the current transform block is not the inter prediction mode, the context is not based on the value of the flag associated with the decoded neighboring transform block (Paragraphs 435-436; Paragraphs 549-552).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 10, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein the context being further based on the block size of the current transform block comprises: selecting a derivation function based on the block size of the current transform block; and deriving the context using the derivation function, the derivation function using at least the prediction mode of the current transform block.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein the context being further based on the block size of the current transform block comprises: selecting a derivation function based on the block size of the current transform block; and deriving the context using the derivation function, the derivation function using at least the prediction mode of the current transform block (Paragraph 128; Paragraph 659).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. teach the method of claim 1, however Zhou et al. does not teach wherein quantization index information comprises a base quantization index, the base quantization index comprising at least one of: a reference quantization index; a picture quantization index; or a frame quantization index.
Zhu et al., however, teaches wherein quantization index information comprises a base quantization index, the base quantization index comprising at least one of: a reference quantization index; a picture quantization index; or a frame quantization index (Paragraph 434).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video coding as taught in Zhou et al. to include the skip transform flag context derivation as taught in Zhu et al. in order to improve the quality of decompressed or decoded digital video or images (See Zhu et al. Paragraph 49).
Method for encoding claims 15-19 are drawn to the method of encoding associated with the method of decoding of claims 1-14 and recites limitations that are similar but merely performed in the inverse. Zhou et al. further teaches a method of encoding associated with the method for decoding (Abstract).
Regarding claims 21-23, claims 21-23 claim a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claims 21-23 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhou et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Zhou et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method (Paragraphs 5-19), the video bitstream comprising: coded information for a plurality of pictures, including a current picture comprising a current transform block in a current block (Paragraphs 5-19); and an entropy-encoded skip transform flag indicating whether a current transform block in the current block of a current picture has all zero coefficient (Paragraphs 5-19; Paragraphs 255-257).
The references to the video encoding method in claims 21-23 are not given patentable weight, however, these limitations are similar to claims 15-19 and would be rejected for the same reasons as used 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483