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
The Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claim 26 has been amended. Claims 16-29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner cannot concur the previously presented prior art references fail to disclose or suggest the claim language of independent claims 16, 20, and 24. Applicant asserts, “none of the cited references, whether alone or in proposed combination, teach or suggest at least determining “that a block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM) for the coding block is enabled” and “based on the determination that the BDPCM is enabled, obtain[ing] a coefficient associated with the coding block…,” as recited in claims 16, 20, and 24.” Applicant further asserts, “Jang is completely silent on the recited subject matter. Rather, Jang teaches improving coding efficiency and complexity of residual coding based on whether lossless coding is used.”
While paragraph [0298] of Jang recites Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM), paragraph [0180] establishes either block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM) or block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM) may be used. Further, Applicant’s discussion of lossless coding of Jang and screen content coding of Applicant’s specification is moot because the claim language does not require or exclude lossless coding or screen content coding. 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., screen content coding) 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).
For these reasons, the 103 rejections of claims 16, 20 and 24 are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 16-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang US 2022/0272388 A1, hereafter Jang, in view of Suzuki et al. “Description of SDR and HDR video coding technology by Sony”, hereafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 16, Jang discloses an apparatus for video decoding (image decoding…apparatus) [title] comprising:
a processor (processor) [0306] configured to:
obtain a coding block associated with a video content (the decoding apparatus 300 may derive units/blocks) [0070];
determine that a block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM) for the coding block is enabled (obtain a BDPCM flag indicating whether or not Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM) is applied to the current block) [0298];
based on the determination that the BDPCM is enabled, obtain a coefficient associated with the coding block (perform BDPCM based on the BDPCM flag, so that it may derive residual coefficients for the current block) [0298].
However, Jang fails to explicitly disclose based on the obtained coefficient, obtain a plurality of predicted signs.
Suzuki, in an analogous environment, discloses based on the obtained coefficient, obtain a plurality of predicted signs (sign prediction uses the neighborhood of previously coded coefficients around the coefficient being coded…locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 1…then locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 2) [section 2.1.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Suzuki, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being coding gain [abstract].
Regarding claim 17, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
Suzuki further discloses the processor is configured to: obtain a difference indication that is configured to indicate a difference between a predicted sign and a sign, wherein the sign is associated with the coefficient for the coding block, and wherein the predicted sign is associated with the plurality of predicted signs; and based on the difference indication and the predicted sign, obtain the sign that is associated with the coefficient for the coding block (locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 1…then locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 2) [section 2.1.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Suzuki, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being coding gain [abstract].
Regarding claim 18, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses to determine that the BDPCM for the coding block is enabled comprises the processor being configured to: obtain a BDPCM enablement indication in video data, wherein the BDPCM enablement indication is configured to indicate whether the BDPCM is enabled, and the determination that the BDPCM is enabled is based on the BDPCM enablement indication (obtain a BDPCM flag indicating whether or not Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM) is applied to the current block) [0298].
Regarding claim 19, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses decoding the coding block based on the obtained sign (in the decoding apparatus, the above operation may be performed inversely…derive the reconstructed sample value) [0192].
Suzuki further discloses obtain a difference between a predicted sign associated with the coefficient for the coding block and a sign associated with the coefficient for the coding block, wherein the difference is obtained in video data; based on the obtained difference between the predicted sign and the sign, obtain the sign associated with the coefficient for the coding block (locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 1…then locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 2) [section 2.1.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Suzuki, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being coding gain [abstract].
Claims 20-23 are drawn to a method implemented by the apparatus of claims 16-19, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above.
Regarding claim 24, Jang discloses an apparatus for video encoding (encoding apparatus 200) [FIG. 2] comprising:
a processor (processor) [0306] configured to:
obtain a coding block associated with a video content (coding unit; unit may be used interchangeably with terms such as block or area in some cases) [0053; 0054];
determine that a block differential pulse coded modulation (BDPCM) for the coding block is enabled (obtain a BDPCM flag indicating whether or not Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM) is applied to the current block) [0298];
based on the determination that the BDPCM is enabled, obtain a coefficient associated with the coding block (perform BDPCM based on the BDPCM flag, so that it may derive residual coefficients for the current block) [0298].
However, Jang fails to explicitly disclose based on the obtained coefficient, obtain a plurality of predicted signs.
Suzuki, in an analogous environment, discloses based on the obtained coefficient, obtain a plurality of predicted signs (sign prediction uses the neighborhood of previously coded coefficients around the coefficient being coded…locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 1…then locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 2) [section 2.1.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Suzuki, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being coding gain [abstract].
Regarding claim 25, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
Suzuki further discloses the processor is configured to: select a predicted sign from the plurality of predicted signs, wherein the predicted sign is associated with the coefficient for the coding block; obtain a sign associated with the coefficient for the coding block; obtain a difference between the predicted sign and the sign (sign prediction uses the neighborhood of previously coded coefficients around the coefficient being coded…locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 1…then locate the value of predSign and subContext from Table 2) [section 2.1.2]; and
include the obtained difference in video data (sign bits within each coefficient group are coded together) [section 2.1.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Suzuki, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being coding gain [abstract].
Regarding claim 27, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses the processor is configured to: based on the determination that the BDPCM is enabled, include a BDPCM enablement indication in video data, wherein the BDPCM enablement indication is configured to indicate whether the BDPCM is enabled (obtain a BDPCM flag indicating whether or not Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation (BDPCM) is applied to the current block) [0298].
Regarding claim 28, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses the processor is configured to:
obtain a prediction direction associated with the coding block, wherein the prediction direction is associated with at least one of a horizontal BDPCM direction or a vertical BDPCM direction (the BDPCM direction may indicate whether vertical direction or horizontal direction prediction is used) [0182];
obtain a predicted coding block based on the prediction direction (predicting a block by applying BDPCM) [0181];
determine a distance between a sample from the predicted coding block and a reference sample; and include a prediction direction indication in video data, wherein the prediction direction indication is configured to indicate the prediction direction (prediction may be performed in the BDPCM direction. The prediction error may be quantized in the spatial domain, and the sample may be reconstructed by adding the dequantized prediction error to the prediction (i.e., the prediction sample). The prediction error may mean a residual) [0182].
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Suzuki further in view of Chen et al. “Description of SDR, HDR, and 360 video coding technology proposal by Qualcomm and Technicolor – low and high complexity versions”, hereafter Chen.
Regarding claim 26, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 25 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the predicted sign is a first predicted sign, wherein the difference is a first difference, and wherein the processor is configured to: select a second predicted sign from the plurality of predicted signs, wherein the second predicted sign is associated with the coefficient for the coding block; obtain a second difference between the second predicted sign and the sign; determine the smallest difference between the first difference and the second difference; and based on the determination that the smallest difference between the first difference and the second difference is the first difference, include the first difference in the video data.
Chen, in an analogous environment, discloses wherein the predicted sign is a first predicted sign, wherein the difference is a first difference, and wherein the processor is configured to: select a second predicted sign from the plurality of predicted signs, wherein the second predicted sign is associated with the coefficient for the coding block; obtain a second difference between the second predicted sign and the sign; determine the smallest difference between the first difference and the second difference; and based on the determination that the smallest difference between the first difference and the second difference is the first difference, include the first difference in the video data (if two signs are predicted, then there can be 4 possible combinations…for all four combinations, the cost function is calculated and the combination with the minimum cost is selected as the sign predictor combination) [section 2.4.2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sign prediction as disclosed by Chen, with the invention disclosed by Jang and Suzuki, the motivation being minimizes a cost function [section 2.4.2].
Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Suzuki further in view of Xu US 2022/0360800 A1, hereafter Xu.
Regarding claim 29, Jang and Suzuki address all of the features with respect to claim 24 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses the processor is configured to:
obtain a first prediction direction associated with the coding block, wherein the first prediction direction is associated with a horizontal BDPCM direction (the BDPCM direction may indicate whether vertical direction or horizontal direction prediction is used) [0182];
obtain a first predicted coding block based on the first prediction direction (predicting a block by applying BDPCM) [0181];
obtain a second prediction direction associated with the coding block, wherein the second prediction direction is associated with a vertical BDPCM direction (the BDPCM direction may indicate whether vertical direction or horizontal direction prediction is used) [0182];
obtain a second predicted coding block based on the second prediction direction (predicting a block by applying BDPCM) [0181].
However the combination fails to explicitly disclose determine a first distance between a sample from the first predicted coding block and a reference sample and determine a second distance between a sample from the second predicted coding block and the reference sample; compare the first distance and the second distance to determine a minimum distance, wherein the minimum distance is associated with the first prediction direction and the second prediction direction; and based on the determined minimum distance, include a prediction direction indication in video data, wherein the prediction direction indication is configured to indicate the first prediction direction or the second prediction direction having the minimum distance.
Xu, in an analogous environment, discloses determine a first distance between a sample from the first predicted coding block and a reference sample and determine a second distance between a sample from the second predicted coding block and the reference sample; compare the first distance and the second distance to determine a minimum distance, wherein the minimum distance is associated with the first prediction direction and the second prediction direction; and based on the determined minimum distance, include a prediction direction indication in video data, wherein the prediction direction indication is configured to indicate the first prediction direction or the second prediction direction having the minimum distance (the coding terminal may decide the prediction direction through the RDO, and may code the fourth BDPCM indication information in the coded stream based on the selected prediction direction to indicate the prediction direction of the BDPCM mode) [0914].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RDO as disclosed by Xu, with the invention disclosed by Jang and Suzuki, the motivation being reduce memory overhead [0004].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoo et al. US 2022/0078433 A1 discloses BDPCM-based image decoding
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 STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485