DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 14 OCTOBER 2024.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0050436 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system ([0011], “A method and apparatus of scaling list data signaling by sharing the scaling list data with a reference layer or a reference view for a scalable or three-dimensional video decoding system”) having memory and one or more processors ([0042], “program code to be executed on a Digital Signal Processor (DSP) to perform the processing […] a number of functions to be performed by a computer processor, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, or field programmable gate array (FPGA).” [0038-0039] describes FIGS. 5 and 6 implemented with memory and processing units), the method comprising:
receiving a multi-view video bitstream comprising a plurality of pictures, wherein the plurality of pictures includes a first picture corresponding to a first view and a second picture corresponding to a second view ([0011], “receives coded data associated with a current block in a current layer or a current view from a current bitstream and determines whether a first flag exists in the current bitstream.” [0023], “multi-view coding system to share scaling lists of a reference view by dependent views.” Note, a current view is a first picture representing the first view and a reference view is a second picture representing the second view);
determining whether one or more quantization parameters for the first picture and the second picture are signaled jointly (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” [0024], “Otherwise, the scaling list data of the reference layer is used.” Note, the scaling list data is another term for quantization matrix, see [0009], “the quantization matrices, also called scaling list data”); and
when the one or more quantization parameters for the first picture corresponding to the first view and the second picture corresponding to the second view are signaled jointly (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS”), performing a first quantization process on the first picture and a second quantization process on the second picture based on a shared set of quantization parameters ([0039], “When the first flag exists and the first flag has a second value, the scaling list data for the current layer or the current view is determined from the current bitstream as shown in step 640. Decoding process is then applied to the coded data associated with the current block using the scaling list data determined as shown in step 650”).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein determining whether the quantization parameters for the first picture and the second picture are signaled jointly comprises parsing an indicator from a high-level syntax in the multi-view video bitstream (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” [0024], “Otherwise, the scaling list data of the reference layer is used.” Note, using the same quantization matrices between the multiple views constitutes as “signaled jointly”).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses further comprising, when the quantization parameters for the first picture corresponding to the first view and the second picture corresponding to the second view are not signaled jointly, performing the first quantization process on the first picture using a first set of quantization parameters and performing the second quantization process on the second picture using a second set of quantization parameters, wherein the second set of quantization parameters are independent of the first set of quantization parameters (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” Note, if the quantization matrices are indicated as signaled in each respective SPS, then it constitutes as not signaled jointly. FIG. 6, steps 630-650).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein the quantization parameters for the first picture and the second picture are signaled jointly for the multi-view video bitstream (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” [0024], “Otherwise, the scaling list data of the reference layer is used.” Note, using the same quantization matrices between the multiple views constitutes as “signaled jointly”).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein determining whether the quantization parameters for the first picture and the second picture are signaled jointly comprises deriving whether the quantization parameters for the first picture and the second picture are signaled jointly based on coded information (FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” [0024], “Otherwise, the scaling list data of the reference layer is used.” Note, using the same quantization matrices between the multiple views constitutes as “signaled jointly”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein performing the second quantization process on the second picture based on the shared set of quantization parameters comprises deriving one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process based on one or more signaled quantization parameters for the first quantization process (FIG. 4 depicts the scaling list data syntax elements derived for performing each quantization process, dependent on the SPS signaling in FIG. 3 or if signaled in the PPS as exemplified in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses further comprising: for one or more quantization parameters, parsing respective indicators in the multi-view video bitstream to determine whether corresponding quantization parameters are shared for the first picture and the second pictures (FIGS. 2-4 depict syntax element for deriving quantization matrices for each view, in particular FIG. 2, “sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag” and FIG. 3, “pps_scaling_list_data_present_flag.” FIG. 6, step 640. [0021], “The sequence level list-data present flag indicates whether the scaling list data is incorporated in the sequence level or not. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a first specified value (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=1), the scaling list data is carried in the SPS. If the sequence level list-data present flag has a second specified value, (e.g., sps_scaling_list_data_present_flag=0), the scaling list data is not present in the SPS.” [0024], “Otherwise, the scaling list data of the reference layer is used”).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein the respective indicators are signaled in high-level syntax (Each of FIGS. 2-4 depict high-level syntax).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein the first quantization process is performed on the first picture using the shared set of quantization parameters and one or more additional quantization parameters (FIGS. 2-4 illustrate a plurality of parameters used for quantization processing).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses further comprising parsing a first indicator to identify which quantization parameters are signaled jointly for the first picture and the second picture (FIG. 4 discloses scaling list data syntax including ID parameters for identifying the scaling list data to be used).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Liu discloses wherein the shared set of quantization parameters comprises one or more of: a quantization matrix, a block-level delta quantization parameter, a delta quantization parameter for different color components, and a delta quantization parameter for different temporal layers ([0009], “the quantization matrices, also called scaling list data.” [0020], “the scaling list (quantization matrix) information is signalled and processed independently in different spatial and quality layers. Due to the high correlation among the temporal collocated pictures among different spatial and quality layers, the same set of scaling lists (i.e. quantization matrices) may be used among different spatial and quality layers”).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0050436 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0071039 A1 (hereinafter “Sato”).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses every limitation of claim 6, as outlined above. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein deriving the one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process comprises applying a scaling factor to the one or more signaled quantization parameters.
However, Sato teaches wherein deriving the one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process comprises applying a scaling factor to the one or more signaled quantization parameters ([0478], “When the multi-view image coding is performed, it is also possible to obtain the difference between the quantization parameters for each view (different views).” [0479-0480] describe how to calculate a delta QP (dQP) with a second, non-base view. FIG. 23 illustrates the process for inverse quantization by calculating the quantization value using a delta QP and the previous QP, because together they result in the actual QP).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a modification variable on the QP for obtaining the actual QP, as taught by Sato ([0479-0480]), in Liu’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Liu’s invention, by incorporating Sato’s invention, to improve coding efficiency (Sato: [0481]) and inhibit image quality deterioration when quantizing (Sato: [0538]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses every limitation of claim 6, as outlined above. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein deriving the one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process comprises applying a delta value to the one or more signaled quantization parameters.
However, Sato teaches wherein deriving the one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process comprises applying a delta value to the one or more signaled quantization parameters ([0478], “When the multi-view image coding is performed, it is also possible to obtain the difference between the quantization parameters for each view (different views).” [0479-0480] describe how to calculate a delta QP (dQP) with a second, non-base view. FIG. 23 illustrates the process for inverse quantization by calculating the quantization value using a delta QP and the previous QP, because together they result in the actual QP).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a delta QP on a previous QP for obtaining the actual QP, as taught by Sato ([0479-0480]), in Liu’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Liu’s invention, by incorporating Sato’s invention, to improve coding efficiency (Sato: [0481]) and inhibit image quality deterioration when quantizing (Sato: [0538]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Sato disclose every limitation of claim 8, as outlined above. Additionally, Sato discloses further comprising determining the delta value based on a reference parameter for a block in a different view ([0478], “When the multi-view image coding is performed, it is also possible to obtain the difference between the quantization parameters for each view (different views).” [0479-0480] describe how to calculate a delta QP (dQP) with a second, non-base view. FIG. 23 illustrates the process for inverse quantization by calculating the quantization value using a delta QP and the previous QP, because together they result in the actual QP). The same motivation of claim 8 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Liu and Sato disclose every limitation of claim 9, as outlined above. Additionally, Sato discloses wherein the block in the different view comprises a co-located block for a current block or a block identified using a disparity vector ([0478], “When the multi-view image coding is performed, it is also possible to obtain the difference between the quantization parameters for each view (different views).” [0479-0480] describe how to calculate a delta QP (dQP) with a second, non-base view. FIG. 23 illustrates the process for inverse quantization by calculating the quantization value using a delta QP and the previous QP, because together they result in the actual QP). The same motivation of claim 8 applies to claim 10.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0050436 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0368914 A1 (hereinafter “Misra”).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein performing the second quantization process on the second picture based on the shared set of quantization parameters comprises deriving a context for entropy decoding one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process based on one or more signaled quantization parameters for the first quantization process.
However, Misra teaches wherein performing the second quantization process on the second picture based on the shared set of quantization parameters comprises deriving a context for entropy decoding one or more quantization parameters for the second quantization process based on one or more signaled quantization parameters for the first quantization process ([0251-0253] describes adaptively initializing a context for entropy coding based on QP).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have derived context for entropy decoding based on quantization parameters, as taught by Misra (), in Liu’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Liu’s invention, by incorporating Misra’s invention, to improve coding efficiency of the entropy coder (Misra: [0062] and [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 10,609,356 A1 (hereinafter “Waggoner”) – Discloses using same or similar quantization parameters in multi-view systems. See Waggoner, col. 12, ll. 26-34.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights