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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claim 1, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the functionality of operating on sign predicted data is contingent upon the determination of whether or not sign prediction is applied to at least one residual coefficient. Based on breadth of the claim, it is conceivable to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to not have the existence of sign prediction present in the encoding/decoding disclosure. Therefore, under at least one reasonable interpretation, all steps following the initial determination step are contingent and thereby not required for all of claims 1-10. SEE MPEP §2111.04(II) for further guidance. In order to advance prosecution as smoothly as possible, the examiner has provided two separate rejections in parallel, representing both a contingent and non-contingent interpretation of claims 1-10.
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 and 15 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.
In relation to the claim interpretation above, claims 1-10 have been determined to be indefinite as the boundaries of the claimed invention are unclear. Given the broad state of the art and what appears to be the disclosed invention, it is unclear whether or not a non-sign prediction portion of the invention exists or not. As there is a determination, the implication is that a space exists where no sign prediction is needed and therefore all of the subsequent claim limitations are not required. Clarification is requested.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, the term “DC” is not spelled out or defined in the specification. It is presumed to stand for Direct Current. If that is the case, correction will not result in any potential new matter concerns. Please correct.
With respect to claim 15, the language of the preamble is sufficiently confusing as to leave one to guess whether the bitstream or process of encoding is stored on the computer readable recording medium.
Of note, if it is merely the resultant bitstream being stored thereon, it would constitute non-functional descriptive material and will be rejected as such under the guidance of MPEP §2111.05(III) for further guidance. In order to advance prosecution as smoothly as possible, the examiner has provided two separate rejections in parallel, representing both full consideration of the method steps and non-functional descriptive material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a computer readable recording medium could be construed as including both transitory and non-transitory media. While the specification does include non-transitory forms of media being included, these are merely exemplary and do no serve to limit the claim in any meaningful way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al., (US 20250008111 A1) referred to as YOO hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, BASEREF shows an image decoding method, the method comprising: determining whether a sign prediction for at least one residual coefficient is applied (Paragraph [0011] discloses the selection of specific residual coefficients for sign prediction, therefore the 'select specific residual coefficients for prediction in paragraph [0009] constitutes a determination of application for examination purposes.);
when it is determined that the sign prediction is applied, deriving a reconstructed block for each of sign combinations applicable to the at least one residual coefficient (Paragraphs [0009], [0114] among others.);
calculating a cost of each of a plurality of reconstructed blocks (FIG. 7; Paragraphs [0102]-[0108] disclose cost determinations for reconstruction purposes.); and
obtaining a reconstructed block based on sign prediction information about the at least one residual coefficient to which the sign prediction is applied and the cost of each of the plurality of reconstructed blocks (Paragraph [0114] discloses the decoder-side reconstruction procedure involving both prediction and cost thereof.).
Regarding claim 5, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein: a cost of the reconstructed block is acquired based on at least one of a vertical directional cost obtained based on top reconstructed samples positioned at a top boundary of the reconstructed block and a horizontal directional cost obtained based on reconstructed samples positioned at a left boundary of the reconstructed block (Paragraphs [0130], [0141]-[0144] disclose cost analysis based on both the horizontal and vertical orientations, with top and left the natural starting point of said analysis.).
Regarding claim 7, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, and further shows wherein: when an intra prediction mode of the current block is a directional prediction mode, the cost of the reconstructed block is determined to be equal to the horizontal directional cost or the vertical directional cost (Paragraphs [0130], [0141]-[0144] disclose cost analysis based on both the horizontal and vertical orientations, with top and left the natural starting point of said analysis.).
Regarding claim 8, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein: whether it is allowed to apply the sign prediction to the current block is determined based on at least one of a size of the current block, a quantization parameter, an encoding mode, an intra prediction mode or whether a transform skip is applied to the current block (Paragraph [0015] discloses that sign prediction use is determined, "based on the intra prediction mode applied to the current block…").
Regarding claim 9, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein: the sign prediction information represents whether a sign of a residual coefficient used to derive a reconstructed block with a lowest cost among the plurality of reconstructed blocks matches an actual sign (Paragraph [0108] discloses wherein the device locates the lowest cost combination hypothesis to represent the predicted sign.).
Regarding claim 11, BASEREF shows an image encoding method, the method comprising: deriving a reconstructed block for each of sign combinations applicable to at least one residual coefficient (Paragraphs [0009], [0114] among others.);
calculating a cost of each of a plurality of reconstructed blocks (FIG. 7; Paragraphs [0102]-[0108] disclose cost determinations for reconstruction purposes.); and
for the at least one residual coefficient, encoding sign prediction information indicating whether a sign of the at least one residual coefficient used to derive a reconstructed block with a lowest cost among the plurality of reconstructed blocks matches an actual sign combination {Paragraph [0010] gives the overview of the encoding side of the process, including this step.).
Regarding claim 15, BASEREF shows a computer readable recording medium (Paragraph [0012]) that stores a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the computer readable recording medium comprising:
deriving a reconstructed block for each of sign combinations applicable to at least one residual coefficient (Paragraphs [0009], [0114] among others.);
calculating a cost of each of a plurality of reconstructed blocks (FIG. 7; Paragraphs [0102]-[0108] disclose cost determinations for reconstruction purposes.); and
encoding information indicating whether a sign combination used to derive a reconstructed block with a lowest cost among the plurality of reconstructed blocks matches an actual sign combination {Paragraph [0010] gives the overview of the encoding side of the process, including this step.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (Alternative/Additional)
*Of note, these are the alternative rejections referenced in both the Claim Interpretation and 35 USC § 112(b) sections above.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al., (US 20250008111 A1) referred to as YOO hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, BASEREF shows an image decoding method, the method comprising: determining whether a sign prediction for at least one residual coefficient is applied (Paragraph [0011] discloses the selection of specific residual coefficients for sign prediction, therefore the 'select specific residual coefficients for prediction in paragraph [0009] constitutes a determination of application for examination purposes.).
A bit stream generated by an image encoding method… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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.
Regarding claim 15, “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 storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 REFERENCE which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (YOO: Paragraph [0012]).
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.
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) 3, 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOO in view of A. Filippov, V. Rufitskiy, A. Karabutov, and J. Chen, “Residual sign prediction in transform domain for next-generation video coding,” APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing, vol. 8, p. e24, 2019. doi:10.1017/ATSIP.2019.6 referred to as FILIPOV hereinafter.
Regarding claim 3, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, however failing to but FILIPPOV does further show wherein: the at least one residual coefficient includes a residual coefficient that is a DC component (FILIPPOV: Page 2, II. OVERVIEW, A) Transform coefficients prediction techniques describes wherein DC coefficients are utilized.).
Both YOO and FILIPPOV are analogous to the claimed invention in so far as that they deal with sign prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to modify YOO in the spirit of FILIPPOV because relevant cost functions, “can be efficiently calculated only in transform domain, i.e. avoiding switching between these domains for the sake of reducing computational complexity,” (Page 2, I. INTRODUCTION) and DC is the preferred coefficient for such techniques (Page 2, Section II. OVERVIEW, A).
Regarding claim 4, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, however failing to but FILIPPOV does further show wherein: the at least one residual coefficient includes a residual coefficient at a last non-zero position (Filippov: Page 4 discloses N non-zero coefficients, wherein there will inherently be a last position.).
Both YOO and FILIPPOV are analogous to the claimed invention in so far as that they deal with sign prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to modify YOO in the spirit of FILIPPOV because relevant cost functions, “can be efficiently calculated only in transform domain, i.e. avoiding switching between these domains for the sake of reducing computational complexity,” (Page 2, I. INTRODUCTION).
Regarding claim 13, BASEREF shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, however failing to but FILIPPOV does further show wherein: the at least one residual coefficient includes a residual coefficient that is a DC component (FILIPPOV: Page 2, II. OVERVIEW, A) Transform coefficients prediction techniques describes wherein DC coefficients are utilized.).
Both YOO and FILIPPOV are analogous to the claimed invention in so far as that they deal with sign prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to modify YOO in the spirit of FILIPPOV because relevant cost functions, “can be efficiently calculated only in transform domain, i.e. avoiding switching between these domains for the sake of reducing computational complexity,” (Page 2, I. INTRODUCTION) and DC is the preferred coefficient for such techniques (Page 2, Section II. OVERVIEW, A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 10, 12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486