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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 06/15/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 24, 27, 29, 31-32, 35-38 and 40-44 are pending.
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn based on the claim amendments submitted on 02/05/2026
The is a 371 application filed on 06/13/2024 claiming priority to PCT/EP2022/086284 filed on 12/16/2022. Claimed foreign priority to EP 21306890.1 filed on 12/21/2021. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 06/13/2024.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 05/21/2026 Remarks have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of reference being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, and 44 refer to "A method for video decoding”, Claims 16, 19, 24, 27 and 29 refer to "A method for video encoding”, Claims 31, and 34-38 refer to "An apparatus for video decoding”, and Claims 32, and 39-43 refer to "An apparatus for video encoding”. Claims 16, 19, 24, 27, 29, 31-32, 35-38 and 40-43 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, and 44 any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, and 44, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system. It is requested to keep the scope of all the independent claims similar for advancing the prosecution.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20220321886 A1), hereinafter Schwarz, in view of Tamse et al. (US 20240298002 A1), hereinafter Tamse, further in view of Wang et al. (US 20240022725 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Schawrz discloses a method for video decoding, the method comprising (Abstract): determine a prediction type for a block in the video ([0002]); determining states used in a dependent quantization for a block of quantized coefficients (Fig. 8 and 10); and obtaining a block of coefficients by applying an inverse dependent quantization with the determined states to the block of quantized coefficients (Fig. 13).
Schawrz discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Schawrz does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section determining a number of states.
However, Tamse from the same or similar endeavor teaches determining a number of states ([0173], [0268]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schawrz to incorporate the teachings of Tamse to improve efficiency (Tamse, [0174]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Schawrz in view of Tamse discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein the determined number of states is based on the determined prediction type.
However, Wang from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the determined number of states is based on the determined prediction type (Fig. 6, [0037], [0016], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schawrz in view of Tamse to incorporate the teachings of wang to improve bandwidth of video processing (Wang, [0003]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 4, Schawrz in view of Tamse further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1-,further comprising: wherein the number of states used in the dependent quantization is based on an indicator of a scan position of a last significant coefficient in the block of coefficients; and determining an indicator of a number of coded coefficients in the block of coefficients based on the indicator of the scan position of the last significant coefficient (Schawrz, [0224]-[0228]).
Regarding claim 9, Schawrz in view of Tamse further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,further comprising determining wherein the number of states used in the dependent quantization is based on an intra prediction mode (Schawrz, [0224]-[0228], Tamse, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 12, Schawrz in view of Tamse further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,further comprising determining wherein the number of states used in the dependent quantization is based on a quantization parameter (Schawrz, [0224]-[0228], [0238]-[0244], Tamse, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 14, Schawrz in view of Tamse further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,further comprising determining wherein the number of states used in the dependent quantization is based on a size of transform (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 44, Schawrz in view of Tamse further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the number of states used in the dependent quantization is 8 or more than 8 responsive to determining that the prediction type is intra (Wang, [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 16, 19, 24, 27, 29, 31-32, 35-38 and 40-43, please check Examiner’s note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. 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, 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights