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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-13 and 21-27. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 21, 24, and 26-27 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-13, and 21-27 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schwarz et al. does not teach “accessing a plurality of quantized samples of the block, each of the plurality of quantized samples associated with context-coded syntax elements and at least one of the plurality of quantized samples associated with bypass-coded syntax elements”. Applicant acknowledges that Schwarz et al. teaches both context-coded syntax elements and bypass-coded syntax elements. Applicant argues that these elements are associated with quantization indices and not quantized samples. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 97, Schwarz et al. teaches “In H.265|MPEG-H HEVC, all syntax elements are coded using context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC). All non-binary syntax elements are first mapped onto a series of binary decisions, which are also referred to as bins. The resulting bin sequence is coded using binary arithmetic coding. For that purpose, each bin is associated with a probability model (binary probability mass function), which is also referred to as a context. For most bins, the context represents an adaptive probability model, which means that the associated binary probability mass function is updated based on the actually coded bin values. Conditional probabilities can be exploited by switching the contexts for certain bins based on already transmitted data. CABAC also includes a so-called bypass mode, in which the fixed probability mass function (0.5, 0.5) is used.” In Paragraph 101, Schwarz et al. teaches “Video coding standards only specify the bitstream syntax and the reconstruction process. If we consider transform coding for a given block of original prediction error samples and given quantization step sizes, the encoder has a lot a freedom. Given the quantization indexes q.sub.k for a transform block, the entropy coding has to follow a uniquely defined algorithm for writing the data to the bitstream (i.e., constructing the arithmetic codeword). But the encoder algorithm for obtaining the quantization indexes q.sub.k given an original block of prediction error samples is out of the scope of video coding standards. Furthermore, the encoder has the freedom to select a quantization parameter QP on a block basis. For the following description, we assume that the quantization parameter QP and the quantization weighting matrix are given. Hence, the quantization step size for each transform coefficient is known. We further assume that the encoder performs an analysis transform that is the inverse (or a very close approximation of the inverse) of the specified synthesis transform for obtaining original transform coefficients t.sub.k. Even under these conditions, the encoder has the freedom to select a quantizer index q.sub.k for each original transform coefficient t.sub.k. Since the selection of transform coefficient levels determines both the distortion (or reconstruction/approximation quality) and the bit rate, the quantization algorithm used has a substantial impact on the rate-distortion performance of the produced bitstream.” Thus, it is clear that the quantization index defines a quantization level through which specific quantization syntax elements are defined, and if the context-coded syntax elements and bypass-coded syntax elements are associated with the quantization index, they are also in turn “associated” with the quantized samples by extension.
Applicant argues that Schwarz et al. fails to teach “determining a quantizer for the current quantized sample based on a parity of a first quantization level value represented by context-coded syntax elements of a previous quantized sample according to the order”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 149, Schwarz et al. teaches “In an embodiment, the quantization set (set of admissible reconstruction levels) that is used for reconstructing a current transform coefficient is determined based on the subsets that are associated with the last two or more quantization indexes. An example, in which the two last subsets (which are given by the last two quantization indexes) are used is shown in the table of FIG. 10b. The table has to be read as follows: The first subset given in the first table column represents the subset for the directly preceding coefficient and the second subset given in the first table column represents the subset for the coefficient that precedes the directly preceding coefficient. The determination 54 of the quantization set 48 specified by this table represents a specific embodiment. In other embodiments, the quantization set 48 for a current transform coefficient 13′ is determined by the subsets that are associated with the last three or more quantization indexes 58. For the first transform coefficient of a transform block, we don't have any data about the subsets of preceding transform coefficients (since there are no preceding transform coefficients). In an embodiment, pre-defined values are used in these cases. In a further embodiment, we infer the subset A for all non-available transform coefficients. That means, if we reconstruct the first transform coefficient, the two preceding subsets are inferred as “AA” and, thus, according table of FIG. 10b, the quantization set 0 is used. For the second transform coefficient, the subset of the directly preceding quantization index is determined by its value (since set 0 is used for the first transform coefficient, the subset is either A or B), but the subset for the second last quantization index (which does not exist) is inferred to be equal to A. Of course, any other rules can be used for inferring default values for non-existing quantization indexes. It is also possible to use other syntax elements for deriving default subsets for the non-existing quantization indexes. As a further alternative, it is also possible to use the last quantization indexes of the preceding transform block for initialization. For example, the concept of dependent quantization for transform coefficients could be used in way that the dependencies apply across transform block boundaries (but may be limited to boundaries of greater blocks such as CTUs or slices, pictures, etc.).” In Paragraph 178, Schwarz et al. teaches “At least a part of bins for the absolute levels is typically coded using adaptive probability models (also referred to as contexts). In an embodiment, the probability models of one or more bins are selected 103 based on the quantization set 48 (or, more generally, the corresponding state variable) for the corresponding transform coefficient the quantization index 56 belongs to. The chosen probability model or context can depend on multiple parameters or properties of already transmitted quantization indexes, but one of the parameters is the quantization set 48 or state that applies to the quantization index being coded.” In Paragraph 163, Schwarz et al. teaches “In the pseudo-code of FIG. 11, the index k specifies the reconstruction order 14 of transform coefficients 13. It should be noted that, in the example code, the index k decreases in reconstruction order 14. The last transform coefficient in reconstruction order has the index equal to k=0. The first index kstart specifies the reconstruction index (or, more accurately, the inverse reconstruction index) of the first reconstructed transform coefficient. The variable kstart may be set equal to the number of transform coefficients in the transform block minus 1, or it may be set equal to the index of the first non-zero quantization index (for example, if the location of the first non-zero quantization index is transmitted in the applied entropy coding method) in coding/reconstruction order. In the latter case, all preceding transform coefficients (with indexes k>kstart) are inferred to be equal to 0. The reconstruction process for each single transform coefficient is the same as in the example of FIG. 9b. As for the example in FIG. 9b, the quantization indexes are represented by level[k] and the associated reconstructed transform coefficients are represented by trec[k]. The state variable is represented by “state”. Note that in the example of FIG. 11, the state is set equal to 0 at the beginning of a transform block. But as discussed above, other initializations (for example, based on the values of some syntax elements) are possible. The 1d table setId[ ] specifies the quantization sets that are associated with the different values of the state variable and the 2d table state_trans_table[ ][ ] specifies the state transitions given the current state (first argument) and the path (second argument). In the example, the path is given by the parity of the quantization index (using the bit-wise and operator &), but, as mentioned above, other concepts (in particular, other binary functions of level[k]) are possible. Examples, in C-style syntax, for the tables setId[ ] and state_trans_table[ ][ ] are given in FIG. 12 (these tables are identical to the table of FIG. 10c).” In Paragraph 183, Schwarz et al. teaches “It should be noted that the quantization set 48 or the state variable determining 48 and 104 can only be used for selecting the probability models if (at least) the path variables (e.g., given by the parity) for the preceding quantization indexes in coding order are known. This is, for example, not the case if the quantization indexes were coded on the basis of 4×4 subblocks with for each subblock, transmitting the quantization indexes using multiple passes over the corresponding 4×4 array of transform coefficients, similar to HEVC. In HEVC, in the first pass over a 4×4 subblock, the flags sig_coeff_flag were transmitted, which indicate whether a corresponding quantization index is unequal to zero. In a second pass, for the coefficients with sig_coeff_flag equal to 1, the flags coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag were transmitted, which indicate whether the absolute value of a corresponding quantization index is greater than 1. At most 8 of these flags were transmitted for a subblock. Next, the flag coeff_abs_level_greater2_flag was transmitted for the first quantization index (if any) with coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag equal to 1. Then the sign flags were transmitted for the entire subblock. And finally, the non-binary syntax elements coeff_abs_level_remaining were transmitted, which specify the remainder for the absolute values of the quantization indexes (transform coefficient levels). For transmitting the non-binary syntax elements coeff_abs_level_remaining, an adaptive Rice code might be used. In such a case, there is no sufficient information for determining 48 and 104 in the first passes.” The above teachings and associated disclosure throughout Schwarz et al. are interpreted to meet the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant is reminded that 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).
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) 1-13 and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwarz et al. (US 20210084304 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwarz et al. teaches a method for reconstructing a block for a video coded according to an alliance for open media (AOM) enhanced compression model (Abstract; Paragraph 2; Paragraph 54; inherently includes AOM AV2 in “All state of the art video codecs”), the method comprising:
accessing a plurality of quantized samples of the block, each of the plurality of quantized samples associated with context-coded syntax elements and at least one of the plurality of quantized samples associated with bypass-coded syntax elements (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 177- 180; Paragraphs 194-208);
processing the plurality of quantized samples according to an order for the block to generate respective de-quantized samples (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraphs 32-33), the processing comprising:
obtaining a current quantized sample of the block from the plurality of quantized samples (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 53);
determining a quantizer for the current quantized sample based on a parity of a first quantization level value represented by context-coded syntax elements of a previous quantized sample according to the order (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraphs 148-152; Paragraph 177- 180; Paragraphs 194-208); and
de-quantizing the current quantized sample based on the quantizer to generate a de-quantized sample (Paragraphs 5-9); and
reconstructing the block based on the de-quantized samples (Paragraph 5-18).
Regarding Claim 2, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the block comprises a coding unit (Paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding Claim 3, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantized samples associated with the block comprise quantized pixels of the block or quantized transform coefficients of the block (Paragraph 5-18).
Regarding Claim 4, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the context-coded elements of a quantized sample comprise a base range syntax element, and one or more low range syntax elements, and wherein a number of the one or more low range syntax elements is smaller than or equal to four (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 128; Paragraph 134).
Regarding Claim 5, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bypass-coded syntax elements of a quantized sample comprise high range syntax elements (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 128; Paragraph 134).
Regarding Claim 6, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a quantization level of a quantized sample that are associated with the context-coded syntax elements and the bypass-coded syntax elements is a sum of the first quantization level value presented by the context-coded syntax elements and a second quantization level value represented by the bypass-coded syntax elements (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 177- 180; Paragraphs 194-208).
Regarding Claim 7, Schwarz et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a quantization level of a quantized sample that are associated with the context-coded syntax elements without the bypass-coded syntax elements is the first quantization level value represented by the context-coded syntax elements (Paragraph 5-18; Paragraph 177- 180; Paragraphs 194-208).
Claims 8-13 are drawn to the computer-readable medium which executes the method of of encoding corresponding to the method of reconstructing a block of claims 1-7 above, and has similar limitations merely performed in the inverse which are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Schwarz et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program code and a bitstream, wherein the program code, when executed by one or more processing devices, causes the one or more processing devices to implement a method for encoding (Paragraph 9; Paragraph 55)
Method claims 21-27 are drawn to the method for encoding corresponding to the method of reconstructing a block of claims 1-7 and has similar limitations performed in the inverse and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Schwarz et al. further teaches method for encoding a block for a video coded (Paragraph 55).
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
Prosecution Insights