DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/24/2024. Claims 2-21 are pending and are examined.
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
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 09/23/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 2 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Additionally, examiner notes that the broader “method” of Claim 2 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “system” in Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 11 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 10, 15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Additionally, examiner notes that the broader “system” of Claim 11 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “computer-readable media” in Claims 10, 15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 20 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8-9, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,779 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 2, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 2 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Additionally, examiner notes that the broader “method” of Claim 2 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “computer-readable media” in Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 11 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 10, 15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Additionally, examiner notes that the broader “system” of Claim 11 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “method” in Claims 10, 15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 20 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8-9, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,758,162 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Additionally, the claims are substantially similar in scope, in which a minor difference is an encoding process versus a decoding process. An encoder provides the exact reverse/reciprocal process of a decoder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the encoding process is an obvious variant of the decoding process, since the use of an encoding process would necessitate a decoding process to have any value (and vice versa).
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 2, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,283 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 14, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,283 B2.
Examiner notes that Claim 2 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,283 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments.
Examiner notes that Claim 11 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 9, 14, 16, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,283 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments.
Examiner notes that Claim 20 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,283 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: After careful review and consideration of the parent application(s), the remaining parent application(s) are not given an obviousness type double patenting rejection because the instant application is narrower/differing in scope and/or includes non-obvious elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2017/0127058 A1 (please note the Provisional Application No.: 62/015,287, filed on 20 June 2014), hereby Misra.
Claim 20 (and thus, similarly dependent Claim 21), is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon data as part of a bitstream. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable media is merely memory with non-functional descriptive material and is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage media merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, the claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content.
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. Overall, Claim 20 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer readable medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable media known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, Claim 20 (and similarly dependent Claim 21) is anticipated by Misra, in which Misra discloses the following:
“One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon data as part of a bitstream (see Misra, Figs. 1-2, 4, 10, 13, and 17, and paragraph [0080]; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the bitstream may include coded picture data). . . .”
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Applicant has not used the standard non-transitory CRM (non-transitory computer-readable media) claim formats of a) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding/decoding method] or a b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1-3, 8-10.
However, such standard non-transitory CRM claim formats that recite execution/implementation of a method are not subject to a non-functional descriptive material claim interpretation because such a claimed media does not merely store output data but instead stores functional, method steps that have a functional relationship with the media.
Therefore, the examiner suggests either canceling the claim(s) or amending the claim(s) to a standard non-transitory CRM format.
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 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra, in view of Chuang et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0323591 A1 (please note the Provisional Application No.: 62/055,692 filed on 26 September 2014), hereby Chuang.
Misra discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 2, Misra discloses in a computing system, a method (Figs. 1-2, 10, 13, and 17) comprising:
“receiving, as part of data in a bitstream (Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 2, element 234, and paragraph [0062], disclosing the decoder may receive a bitstream (e.g., one or more coded pictures included in the bitstream) for decoding), a flag that indicates whether or not wavefront parallel processing ("WPP") is enabled, the flag being part of a picture parameter set syntax structure or sequence parameter set syntax structure in the bitstream; determining, based on the flag, that WPP is enabled (Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the bitstream may include coded picture data; Fig. 2, element 234, and paragraph [0062], disclosing the decoder may receive a bitstream (e.g., one or more coded pictures included in the bitstream) for decoding; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded (with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts), which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; paragraphs [0165]-[0166], disclosing a flag, such as entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag, may be signaled in the PPS to specify wavefronts (i.e., enabled)); and
reconstructing a picture, including, for a palette decoding mode, predicting a palette for an initial unit in a current WPP row of the picture using previous palette data from a previous unit in a previous WPP row of the picture (Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 2, element 207; paragraphs [0251]-[0252], disclosing a palette coding technique may be enabled or disabled by using a “palette_enabled_flag”; Fig. 13, and paragraphs [0024] and [0260]-[0262], disclosing a previous palette table, a predicted palette table, and an updated palette table; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded, which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts, some of the predicted palette tables and/or updated palette tables of an earlier wavefront may be made available for predicting and/or updating a palette table for a subsequent wavefront; the palette table of one wavefront is stored and used to synchronize (e.g., by being used as a palette table predictor) a subsequent wavefront; the subsequent wavefront is the wavefront in coding tree block row below; one wavefront stores a palette table after decoding the coding tree unit which includes the second coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks, which is used to synchronize a subsequent wavefront, by setting as palette table predictor the stored palette table, before decoding the coding tree unit which includes the first coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks), wherein the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row (Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10), and wherein the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an . . . unit in the previous WPP row, the . . . unit in the previous WPP row being above the initial unit in the current WPP row (Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing the previous unit in the previous WPP row is above the initial unit in the current WPP row; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
However, although Misra does not expressly disclose the claimed the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an initial unit in the previous WPP row, Chuang does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . , and wherein the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an initial unit in the previous WPP row, the initial unit in the previous WPP row being above the initial unit in the current WPP row (Figs. 1-2, and paragraph [0081], disclosing the updated last coded palette of an above initial CU (i.e., position A in FIG. 2) in the above CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette at the beginning of the current CTU row (i.e., position C in FIG. 2)).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Misra and Chuang (hereby Misra-Chuang), to modify the WPP method of Misra to use the claimed the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an initial unit in the previous WPP row as in Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of improving the efficiency of palette coding in the WPP system (see Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs [0079]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 11, Misra-Chuang discloses each and every feature of Claim 2, as outlined above, and further discloses a computer system comprising a processor and memory, the computer system implementing a video encoder configured to perform operations (Misra, Figs. 1-2, 10, 13, and 17) comprising:
“determining that wavefront parallel processing ("WPP") is enabled; outputting, as part of data in a bitstream, a flag that indicates whether or not WPP is enabled, the flag being part of a picture parameter set syntax structure or sequence parameter set syntax structure in the bitstream (Misra, Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the output bitstream may include coded picture data; Fig. 2, element 234, and paragraph [0062], disclosing the decoder may receive a bitstream (e.g., one or more coded pictures included in the bitstream) for decoding; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded (with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts), which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; paragraphs [0165]-[0166], disclosing a flag, such as entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag, may be signaled in the PPS to specify wavefronts (i.e., enabled)); and
encoding a picture, including, for a palette coding mode, predicting a palette for an initial unit in a current WPP row of the picture using previous palette data from a previous unit in a previous WPP row of the picture (Misra, Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the output bitstream may include coded picture data; paragraphs [0251]-[0252], disclosing a palette coding technique may be enabled or disabled by using a “palette_enabled_flag”; Fig. 13, and paragraphs [0024] and [0260]-[0262], disclosing a previous palette table, a predicted palette table, and an updated palette table; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded, which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts, some of the predicted palette tables and/or updated palette tables of an earlier wavefront may be made available for predicting and/or updating a palette table for a subsequent wavefront; the palette table of one wavefront is stored and used to synchronize (e.g., by being used as a palette table predictor) a subsequent wavefront; the subsequent wavefront is the wavefront in coding tree block row below; one wavefront stores a palette table after decoding the coding tree unit which includes the second coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks, which is used to synchronize a subsequent wavefront, by setting as palette table predictor the stored palette table, before decoding the coding tree unit which includes the first coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks), wherein the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10), and wherein the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an initial unit in the previous WPP row, the initial unit in the previous WPP row being above the initial unit in the current WPP row (Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraph [0081], disclosing the updated last coded palette of an above initial CU (i.e., position A in FIG. 2) in the above CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette at the beginning of the current CTU row (i.e., position C in FIG. 2)).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 2 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 20, Misra-Chuang discloses each and every feature of Claims 2 and 11, as outlined above, and further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon data as part of a bitstream (Misra, Figs. 1-2, 10, 13, and 17; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the bitstream may include coded picture data), wherein the data includes a flag that indicates whether or not wavefront parallel processing ("WPP") is enabled, the flag being part of a picture parameter set syntax structure or sequence parameter set syntax structure, and wherein the data is organized to facilitate decoding, with a computer-implemented video decoder (Misra, Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the output bitstream may include coded picture data; Fig. 2, element 234, and paragraph [0062], disclosing the decoder may receive a bitstream (e.g., one or more coded pictures included in the bitstream) for decoding; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded (with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts), which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; paragraphs [0165]-[0166], disclosing a flag, such as entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag, may be signaled in the PPS to specify wavefronts (i.e., enabled)), by operations comprising:
“determining, based on the flag, that WPP is enabled (Misra, Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 1, element 134, disclosing the output bitstream may include coded picture data; Fig. 2, element 234, and paragraph [0062], disclosing the decoder may receive a bitstream (e.g., one or more coded pictures included in the bitstream) for decoding; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded (with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts), which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; paragraphs [0165]-[0166], disclosing a flag, such as entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag, may be signaled in the PPS to specify wavefronts (i.e., enabled)); and
reconstructing a picture, including, for a palette decoding mode, predicting a palette for an initial unit in a current WPP row of the picture using previous palette data from a previous unit in a previous WPP row of the picture (Misra, Figs. 1-2 and 10, disclosing both encoding and decoding devices; Fig. 2, element 207; paragraphs [0251]-[0252], disclosing a palette coding technique may be enabled or disabled by using a “palette_enabled_flag”; Fig. 13, and paragraphs [0024] and [0260]-[0262], disclosing a previous palette table, a predicted palette table, and an updated palette table; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded, which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; with the subsequent wavefronts starting the decoding process at a later time than the earlier wavefronts, some of the predicted palette tables and/or updated palette tables of an earlier wavefront may be made available for predicting and/or updating a palette table for a subsequent wavefront; the palette table of one wavefront is stored and used to synchronize (e.g., by being used as a palette table predictor) a subsequent wavefront; the subsequent wavefront is the wavefront in coding tree block row below; one wavefront stores a palette table after decoding the coding tree unit which includes the second coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks, which is used to synchronize a subsequent wavefront, by setting as palette table predictor the stored palette table, before decoding the coding tree unit which includes the first coding tree block of a row of coding tree blocks), wherein the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10), and wherein the previous unit in the previous WPP row is an initial unit in the previous WPP row, the initial unit in the previous WPP row being above the initial unit in the current WPP row (Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraph [0081], disclosing the updated last coded palette of an above initial CU (i.e., position A in FIG. 2) in the above CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette at the beginning of the current CTU row (i.e., position C in FIG. 2)).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 2 and 11 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row represents at least some colors used in the initial unit in the current WPP row (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing some colors of the previous palette table may or may not be reused/inherited for the initial current unit in the current WPP row (i.e., a new set of palette entries may be used); see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the previous palette data from the previous unit in the previous WPP row (a) represents at least some colors used in a palette for the previous unit in the previous WPP row or (b) was inherited by the previous unit in the previous WPP row (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing some colors of the previous palette table may or may not be reused/inherited for the initial current unit in the current WPP row, and further disclosing this process is reiterated for subsequent wavefronts; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
Regarding Claims 6, 15, and 21, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the current WPP row and the previous WPP row are rows of coding tree units, and wherein the initial unit in the current WPP row and the previous unit in the previous WPP row are coding units (Misra, Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded, which include coding units therein, a set of palette tables are generated, predicted, updated for each of the wavefronts; see also Fig. 13, and paragraphs [0024] and [0260]-[0262]; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the predicting includes one or more of: determining whether to reuse the previous palette data from the previous unit in the previous WPP row as the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row; and selecting one or more colors from the previous palette data from the previous unit in the previous WPP row to include in the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing some colors of the previous palette table may or may not be reused/inherited for the initial current unit in the current WPP row; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Misra-Chuang-Lai discloses:
“wherein the predicting the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row (Misra, Fig. 17, and paragraphs [0028] and [0332], disclosing as a set of coded tree blocks of a plurality of wavefronts are decoded, which include coding units therein, and further visually disclosing the previous WPP row is immediately above the current WPP row, in which the previous unit in the previous WPP row is above and to the right of the initial unit in the current WPP row; see also Fig. 13, and paragraphs [0024] and [0260]-[0262]; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10) does not use previous palette data from a last unit in the previous WPP row (Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraph [0081], disclosing the updated last coded palette of an above initial CU (i.e., position A in FIG. 2) in the above CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette at the beginning of the current CTU row (i.e., position C in FIG. 2), and further disclosing the position of the CU to be inherited in the upper CTU row can be predefined).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Misra-Chuang to modify the WPP method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable media of Misra to use the predicting the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row does not use previous palette data from a last unit in the previous WPP row as in Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of improving the efficiency of palette coding in the WPP system relating to the particularized position of the CU to be inherited in the upper CTU row (see Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraphs [0079]-[0081]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the initial unit in the previous WPP row is immediately above the initial unit in the current WPP row (Chuang, Figs. 1-2, and paragraph [0081], disclosing the updated last coded palette of an above initial CU (i.e., position A in FIG. 2) in the above CTU row is used as the initial last coded palette at the beginning of the current CTU row (i.e., position C in FIG. 2)).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claims 2, 11, and 20 applies equally as well here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra-Chuang, and in further view of Lai et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2017/0026641 A1 (please note the Provisional Application Nos.: 61/952,932 filed on 14 March 2014 and 62/055,692 filed on 26 September 2014), hereby Lai.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Misra-Chuang discloses:
“wherein the reconstructing the picture further includes predicting a palette for a . . . unit in the current WPP row of the picture using palette data from the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row of the picture (Misra, Figs. 13 and 17, and paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0260]-[0262], and [0332], visually disclosing some colors of the previous palette table may or may not be reused/inherited for the initial current unit in the current WPP row; see also paragraphs [0263]-[0272], disclosing various modes and flags associated with the previous, predicted, and updated palette tables; see also Figs. 1-2 and 10).”
However, although Misra-Chuang does not expressly disclose the claimed predicting a palette for a subsequent unit in the current WPP row using palette data from the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row, Lai does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the reconstructing the picture further includes predicting a palette for a subsequent unit in the current WPP row of the picture using palette data from the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row of the picture (Figs. 1 and 3-4, and paragraphs [0051]-[0053], disclosing WPP and that when the palette predictor is initialized at the beginning of the current row, the palette predictor is maintained for the row until an update for a major color is required).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Misra-Chuang and Lai, to modify the WPP method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable media of Misra-Chuang to use the claimed predicting a palette for a subsequent unit in the current WPP row using palette data from the palette for the initial unit in the current WPP row as in Lai. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of improving efficiency of palette management and significantly reducing the coding time, memory usage, and power consumption (see Lai, Figs. 1 and 3-4, and paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Although Claims 10 and 19 contain allowable subject matter, Claims 2, 10-11, and 19-20 are currently rejected under nonstatutory double patenting, as outlined above. The rejection may be overcome by Applicant filing a Terminal Disclaimer. Once the double patenting rejection is overcome, then Claims 10 and 19 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (under 35 U.S.C. 103), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose wavefront parallel processing. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Coban (US 2014/0003531 A1), Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0081], and Table 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482