11DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claim 1. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose:
“wherein the obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability comprising:
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;
obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the adaptive
weight, the first probability, and the second probability." [Emphasis added]”.
Applicant argues that Said determines different weights for first and second probabilities, whereas claim 1 requires an adaptive weight used to obtain the multi-hypothesis probabilities “according to the adaptive weight, the first probability, and the second probability”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), claim 1 does not positively require that one single scalar weight is applied identically to both the first and second probabilities, nor does it exclude implementations where the “adaptive weight” is a set of weights, a vector, or a derived weight term that yields different per-estimator weights. Claim 1 only requires obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability “according to the adaptive weight, the first probability, and the second probability.” Said is applied in the Non-Final as teaching this limitation via ¶¶ [0033]- [0035] and [0043]- [0045]; and Fig. 7. Applicant’s “different weight” distinction is therefore an restrictive interpretation not supported by the claim language under the BRI.
Applicant also argues that claims 9 and 17 are patentable for the same reasons presented to claim 1 and that the dependent claims are allowable for their dependence on an allowable claim. Because claim 1 remains rejected ( see above), the statement that the dependent claims are allowable solely due to dependency does not transverse the applied rejections on their merits.
Accordingly, the claims remains unpatentable for the reasons presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) wherein a bit depth is 11 or 12, but the specification, as filed, does not provide adequate support for this limitation. Upon reviewing the specification, there is no discussion, description, or mention of this feature. The specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
Therefore, the specification as filed does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant point out where in the specification (i.e., paragraph, line number) support can be found for the aforementioned newly added limitations.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Said et al. (US20190387232A1), hereinafter referred to as Said.
Regarding claim 1, Said discloses a method for video coding, comprising:
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, ¶ [0019]), wherein the multi-hypothesis probability indicates a probability of the binary symbol equaling to a binary value (Said, ¶ [0144]), and the binary symbol is from a plurality of binary symbols associated with the context model (Said, ¶ [0021]); and
coding , the binary symbol according to the multi-hypothesis probability (Said, ¶ [0143], and Figs. 4 and 6).
wherein the obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability comprising: 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; obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the adaptive weight, the first probability, and the second probability(Said, ¶¶ [0033]- [0035], [0043]- [0047] and [0084]; and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claim analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Said discloses 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 (Said, ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, 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 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Said discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform an coding method (Said, ¶ [0062]).
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 3-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said, 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 3, Said discloses 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, ¶¶ [0044]- [0045])
Said does not explicitly disclose the according to the context model from a set of predetermined integer weight values in a weight initialization table.
However, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses according to the context model from a set of predetermined integer weight values in a weight initialization table (H.265, P.98: cabac_init_flag; and P210: Table 9-11; PP. 211-212: Table 9-17 to 9-25; and Section 9.3.4.3.2)
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 4, Said and H.265 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Said discloses the obtaining,, the adaptive weight (Said, ¶¶ [0033]- [0039]).
Said does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
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, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining,, a weight initialization table 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).
The motivation for combining Said and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 5, Said 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, H.265 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 (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 and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 6, Said 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, H.265 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 (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 and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 7, Said 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 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 and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 8, Said and H.265 disclose all the limitations of claim 7, 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 and H.265 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claims 11-16, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 3-8, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said, in view of Xu et. al (US20230254489A1), hereinafter referred to as Xu.
Regarding claim 21, Said discloses 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, wherein a bit depth is 11 or 12.
However, Xu from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a bit depth is 11 or 12 (Xu, ¶[0078] bit depth (for example: 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit, . . . ))
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 Xu as above, in order to code a video a sequence in the form of a digital video sample stream that can be of any suitable bit depth (for example: 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit, . . . ), any colorspace (for example, BT.601 Y CrCB, RGB, . . . ), and any suitable sampling structure (for example Y CrCb 4:2:0, Y CrCb 4:4:4). (Xu, [0078]).
Regarding claim 22, Said discloses all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Said does not explicitly disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein a bit depth is 11 or 12.
However, Xu from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein a bit depth is 11 or 12 (Xu, ¶[0078] bit depth (for example: 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit, . . . ))
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 Xu as above, in order to code a video a sequence in the form of a digital video sample stream that can be of any suitable bit depth (for example: 8 bit, 10 bit, 12 bit, . . . ), any colorspace (for example, BT.601 Y CrCB, RGB, . . . ), and any suitable sampling structure (for example Y CrCb 4:2:0, Y CrCb 4:4:4). (Xu, [0078]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486