DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-15. Claim 15 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “spatial position, region, or block within the reconstructed picture a context status is obtained”, “spatial location for context state acquisition” “selecting a location based on spatial relationship, coding order, block position, or any other spatial consideration”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Zhang et al. fails to teach “initializing the context model in the current processing unit by using a context state at a predetermined location in a previously reconstructed reference picture”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 101, Zhang et al. teaches “Suppose one picture is coded with one slice, the following rules are applied to derive the initialized states of context models. First, the previously coded picture includes a slice with the slice type that is the same as current slice type. In other examples, the initialized slice QP (Quantization Parameter) is the same as that used in current slice. Second, the states after coding one block with pre-defined address in the previously coded picture are recorded and used as the initialized states of current slice” In Paragraph 169, Zhang et al. teaches “With respect to context statuses, when context initialization from previously coded information is enabled, the stored status of context models for initializing the following slices/tiles/pictures are in lower precision than that for coding the following slices/tiles/pictures. Denote the precision of context status associated with a binary arithmetic coder by N-bits and the precision of stored context status by K-bits, wherein N and K are both positive integer values. In some examples, K may be smaller than N. In one example, K is set to N−1. Alternatively, N may be equal to 15 and K may be equal to 8.” The teachings above are interpreted to meet the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20180098072 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a method performed by a video decoding device for initializing a context model of a context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (Abstract; Paragraph 2), the method comprising:
decoding, from a bitstream, context initialization-enabling information that indicates whether to use a reference-based context initialization method for the context model in a current processing unit in a current picture (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraph 67; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-169);
determining an initialization method of the context model by using the context initialization-enabling information, wherein the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method or a quantization parameter-based context initialization method (Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraphs 169-171);
checking whether the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171); and
when the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method, initializing the context model in the current processing unit by using a context state at a predetermined location in a previously reconstructed reference picture (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the current processing unit is the current picture, or a parallelization unit within the current picture, and wherein the parallelization unit is a slice, a tile, a Coding Tree Unit line (CTU line), or a Virtual Pipeline Data Unit (VPDU) within the current picture (Paragraph 206; Paragraph 220).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the context initialization-enabling information is represented as a flag indicating whether to use the context initialization method, or an index indicating one of initialization methods (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 60-69; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein initializing the context model includes: when the current processing unit is the current picture and when the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method, initializing the context model in the current picture by using the context state at the predetermined location in the previously reconstructed reference picture (Paragraph 55-59; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein initializing the context model includes: when the current processing unit is the parallelization unit and when the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method, initializing a context model in a first parallelization unit in the current picture by using the context state at the predetermined location in the previously reconstructed reference picture (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein initializing the context model includes: when the current processing unit is the parallelization unit and when the initialization method is the reference-based context initialization method, initializing the context model in the current processing unit with reference to a context state stored in the previously reconstructed reference picture at a specified position of a parallelization unit corresponding to the current processing unit (Paragraph 55-59; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein initializing the context model includes: when the initialization method is the quantization parameter-based context initialization method, initializing the context model in the current processing unit by using a predetermined and quantization parameter-based context state (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 62-68; Paragraph 92; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the previously reconstructed reference picture is a reference picture that is being temporally closest to the current picture among reference pictures located in a same temporal layer with the current picture (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 62-68; Paragraph 92; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 123-125; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein initializing the context model includes: when a current Group of Pictures (current GOP), which contains the current picture, uses an open GOP that references a previous GOP and when a picture having a same temporal layer with the current picture is not included in the current GOP, referencing the context state from a previously reconstructed picture included in the previous GOP and having a same temporal layer with the current picture (Paragraph 55-56; Paragraphs 62-68; Paragraph 92; Paragraph 104; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 123-125; Paragraphs 167-171).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein initializing the context model includes: stopping from applying the reference-based context initialization method when the current picture is a non-reference picture (Paragraph 55-59; Paragraphs 67-68; Paragraph 101; Paragraph 116-120; Paragraphs 167-171).
Method claims 11-14 are drawn to the encoding method corresponding to the decoding method disclosed in claims 1-10 above, and have limitations that are substantially similar, merely performed in the inverse. Zhang et al. further teaches a method performed by a video encoding device for initializing a context model of a context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (Paragraph 27-28)
Claim 15 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video encoding method corresponding to claim 11 above and the video encoding method is rejected above.
However, Claim 15 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III).
The memory storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Zhang et al. discloses a non-trasitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph 40).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483