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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3, 9, 11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said et al. (US20190387232A1) hereinafter referred to as Said, in view Zakharchenko et al. (US20200344480A1), hereinafter referred to as Zakharchenko.
Regarding claim 1, Said discloses a method for video coding, comprising (Said, ¶¶ [0005]- [0006]):
Said also discloses determining a plurality of weights for the plurality of estimator functions such that when the respective weights are applied to the estimator functions a resulting sum of outputs of the plurality of estimator functions yields the probability used for binary arithmetic coding (Said, Abstract and ¶ [0006])
Said does not explicitly disclose obtaining an adaptive weight according to a context model from a set of predetermined integer weight values in a weight initialization table;
However, Zakharchenko from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses obtaining an adaptive weight according to a context model from a set of predetermined integer weight values in a weight initialization table (See Zakharchenko, ¶¶ [0074]- [0082] and Figs. 3A-3B)
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 teachings disclosed by Said to add the teachings of Zakharchenko as above in order to better model bin strings using context specific probability weighting (Zakharchenko, ¶¶ [0073] and [0074]).
Further, Said discloses obtaining, and according to an adaptive weight, a multi-hypothesis probability for a binary symbol of a context model for the binary arithmetic decoder (Said, Abstract, ¶¶ [0006], [0019]-[0023], [0144]-[0145]), wherein the multi-hypothesis probability indicates a probability of the binary symbol equaling to a binary value (Said, ¶¶ [0023] and [0144]), and the binary symbol is from a plurality of binary symbols associated with the context model (Said, ¶¶ [0021] and [0144]).
Regarding claim 3, Said and Zakharchenko disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Said discloses the method of claim 1, obtaining a first probability for the binary symbol according to a first adaptation parameter; obtaining a second probability for the binary symbol according to a second adaption parameter; and obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the adaptive weight, the first probability, and the second probability. (Said, ¶¶ [0033]- [0035], [0043]- [0047], [0084] and Fig. 7)
Regarding claims 9 and 11, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1 and 3, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Said discloses apparatus for video coding, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations (Said, ¶¶ [0007]- [0008] and [0152]).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1 and 3, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Said discloses apparatus for video coding, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations (Said, ¶¶ [0007]- [0008] and [0152])
Claims 4-8, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said in view of Zakharchenko, further, in view of ITU-T” H.264 Series H: AUDIOVISUAL AND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS Infrastructure of audiovisual services – Coding of moving video” (08/2021), hereinafter referred to as H.265.
Regarding claim 4, Said and Zakharchenko disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Said discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, the adaptive weight (Said, ¶¶ [0033]- [0039]).
Said does not explicitly disclose obtaining a weight initialization table for each slice type; and
in response to determining that a current slice is a first slice type, selecting, the weight initialization table according to the first slice type, wherein the first slice type comprises an I type, a P type, or a B type; and obtaining, the adaptive weight according to the weight initialization table that is selected.
However, Zakharchenko from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses o obtaining a weight initialization table (Zakharchenko, ¶¶ [0076]- [0082] and Figs. 3A-4B);
The motivation for combining Said and Zakharchenko has been discussed in connection with claim, above.
Further, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses for each slice type (H.265, Table 9-4: iniType and Tables 9-5 to 9-37: initVale; and Section 9.3.2.2); and
in response to determining that a current slice is a first slice type, selecting, the weight initialization table according to the first slice type, wherein the first slice type comprises an I type, a P type, or a B type (H.265, Table 9-4: iniType and Tables 9-5 to 9-37: initVale; and Section 9.3.2.2 Equation (9-7); and
obtaining, the adaptive weight according to the weight initialization table that is selected (Said, ¶¶ [0033]- [0039]; and H.267, Section 9.3.2.2).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the H.265’s table-based context initialization to Said’s weights in the same CABAC pipeline which is a simple substitution and use of a known technique to improve similar device with a routine integration of two standard CABAC practices.
Regarding claim 5, Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Said does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising:
obtaining, a control syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicating whether to select the weight initialization table for each slice.
However, Zakharchenko, from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: obtaining, a control syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicating whether to select the weight initialization table for each slice (Zakharchenko, ¶¶ [0081]- [0082] and Figs. 3B and 4B)
Further, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression also discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: obtaining, a control syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicating whether to select the weight initialization table for each slice (H.267, Section 7.4.3.3.1: PPS control; and Section 9.3.2.2: Equation (9-7), and Table 9-4).
The motivation for combining Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 4, above.
Regarding claim 6, Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Said does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, further comprising:
in response to determining that the control syntax element is enabled, obtaining, and at a slice level, an adaptive weight syntax element for each slice indicating the weight initialization table selected for each slice according to a slice type of each slice.
However, Zakharchenko, from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
in response to determining that the control syntax element is enabled, obtaining, and at a slice level, an adaptive weight syntax element for each slice indicating the weight initialization table selected for each slice according to a slice type of each slice (Zakharchenko, ¶¶ [0080]- [0082])
Further, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression also discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
in response to determining that the control syntax element is enabled, obtaining, and at a slice level, an adaptive weight syntax element for each slice indicating the weight initialization table selected for each slice according to a slice type of each slice (H.267, Section 7.4.3.3.1: PPS control; Section 7.3.6.1: slice header syntax and Section 9.3.2.2: Equation (9-7), and Table 9-4).
The motivation for combining Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 4, above.
Regarding claim 7, Said and Zakharchenko disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Said does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, a first weight initialization table for each I slice, a second weight initialization table for each P slice, and a third weight initialization table for each B slice;
in response to determining that a current slice is an I slice, selecting, the first weight initialization table;
in response to determining that the current slice is a P slice or a B slice, selecting, the second weight initialization table or the third weight initialization table; and
obtaining, the adaptive weight according to a selected weight initialization table.
However, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, a first weight initialization table for each I slice, a second weight initialization table for each P slice, and a third weight initialization table for each B slice (H.267, Section 9.3.2.2);
in response to determining that a current slice is an I slice, selecting, the first weight initialization table (H.267, Section 9.3.2.2);
in response to determining that the current slice is a P slice or a B slice, selecting, the second weight initialization table or the third weight initialization table; and
obtaining, the adaptive weight according to a selected weight initialization table (H.267, Section 9.3.2.2).
The motivation for combining Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 4, above.
Regarding claim 8, Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Said does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising:
in response to determining that the current slice is not an I slice, obtaining, a control syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicating whether to select a weight initialization table for each slice; and
in response to determining that the control syntax element is enabled, obtaining, at a slice level, an adaptive weight syntax element for each non-I slice indicating a weight initialization table that is selected from the second weight initialization table and the third weight initialization table.
However, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
in response to determining that the current slice is not an I slice, obtaining, a control syntax element in a picture parameter set (PPS) indicating whether to select a weight initialization table for each slice (H.267, Section 7.4.3.3.1); and
in response to determining that the control syntax element is enabled, obtaining, at a slice level, an adaptive weight syntax element for each non-I slice indicating a weight initialization table that is selected from the second weight initialization table and the third weight initialization table (H.267, Section 7.3.6.1).
The motivation for combining Said, Zakharchenko and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claims 1 and 4, above.
Regarding claims 12-16, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 4-8, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 4, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM (EST).
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 Atala can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights