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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 8 and 17 contain the typo “quanitzers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 contains the typo “quanitzers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 8 and 16 contain the typo “quanitzers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 contains the typo “quanitzers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are directed to an apparatus. The body of the claim is comprised of a series of functions. However, there is no structure positively recited in the body of the claim. The preamble of the claim recites “one or more electronics or processors”. The Examiner recommends the structures be claimed in said body of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (US 2020/0404257) in view of Schwarz et al. (US 2021/0084304).
Regarding claim 1 Filippov discloses a method of dequantizing quantized transform coefficients for processing video data, the method comprising:
receiving quantization coefficients associated with transform coefficients of a residual block (quantized coefficients 209 in Figure 9), wherein the quantization coefficients are divided into one or more segments with a predefined number or range of transform coefficients for each of said one or more segments (Figure 1 shows TU 410 with a size of 16×16 coefficients, which is divided into 16 coefficient groups with the size 4×4, of which the first CG is denoted by reference numeral – [0008]), and wherein one or more signs associated with one or more sign-hiding quantization coefficients corresponding to one or more target coefficients in a current segment are not signalled or parsed (determine whether or not sign data hiding was applied based on conditions and/or information extracted from a bitstream (such as a flag indicating whether or not SBH is allowed) – [0015-0019]);
for the current segment, determining a sign-hiding state of a selected coefficient, or determining parity information of the quantized coefficients of the current segment, or determining both (determine whether or not sign data hiding was applied based on conditions and/or information extracted from a bitstream (such as a flag indicating whether or not SBH is allowed) – [0015-0019]);
determining said one or more signs associated with said one or more sign-hiding quantization coefficients corresponding to said one or more target coefficients in the current segment based on the sign-hiding state, the parity information of the current segment, or both (determine the first non-zero coefficient in the CG, calculate parity of the sum of all absolute coefficient values in the CG, if the parity has a first value, set the sign of the first non-zero coefficient to the respective first polarity corresponding to the first value (positive or negative) – [0015-0019]; determining the sign of the coefficient to which SBH is applied – [0195]); and
dequantizing the quantization coefficients with said one or more signs recovered using respective quantizers from the plurality of quanitzers (retrieve hidden signs and apply them to corresponding quantized transform coefficients – S24 in Figure 10; dequantized coefficients 211 in Figure 9).
However, fails to explicitly disclose identifying a plurality of states and a plurality of quanitzers corresponding to dependent quantization used for the residual block.
In his disclosure Schwarz teaches identifying a plurality of states and a plurality of quanitzers corresponding to dependent quantization used for the residual block (states and quantizers shown in Figures 10b and 10c).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Schwarz into the teachings of Filippov because such incorporation results in having reconstructed transform coefficients being calculated by algorithms with a very low computational complexity (paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 2 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the plurality of states corresponds to 4 states and said one or more target coefficients correspond to one target coefficient, two of the 4 states represent positive sign and remaining two of the 4 states represent negative sign.
In his disclosure Schwarz teaches the plurality of states corresponds to 4 states and said one or more target coefficients correspond to one target coefficient, two of the 4 states represent positive sign and remaining two of the 4 states represent negative sign (Figures 10b and 10c show 4 states with positive signs and negative signs (values of 0s and 1s).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Schwarz into the teachings of Filippov because such incorporation results in having reconstructed transform coefficients being calculated by algorithms with a very low computational complexity (paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 3 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the plurality of states corresponds to 8 states and said one or more target coefficients correspond to one target coefficient, four of the 8 states represent positive sign and remaining four of the 8 states represent negative sign.
In his disclosure Schwarz teaches the plurality of states corresponds to 4 states and said one or more target coefficients correspond to one target coefficient, two of the 4 states represent positive sign and remaining two of the 4 states represent negative sign (refer to rejection of claim 2).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Schwarz into the teachings of Filippov because such incorporation results in having reconstructed transform coefficients being calculated by algorithms with a very low computational complexity (paragraph 122).
While Schwarz teaches 4 states and two of the 4 states represent positive sign and remaining two of the 4 states represent negative sign fails to teach the plurality of states corresponds to 8 states and four of the 8 states represent positive sign and remaining four of the 8 states represent negative sign. However, it appears the method will perform equally well with 4 states and two of the 4 states represent positive sign and remaining two of the 4 states represent negative sign, as per Applicant’s disclosure.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have 8 states and four of the 8 states represent positive sign and remaining four of the 8 states represent negative sign because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 4 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the sign-hiding state of the selected coefficient corresponds to a state of first or last coefficient of the current segment, or corresponds to a state of first or last non-zero coefficient of the current segment (If SBH is to be applied, embedding the sign of the first non-zero coefficient into a function of a plurality or all coefficients in the CC – [0027]).
Regarding claim 5 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the predefined number or range of transform coefficients for each of said one or more segments corresponds to N coefficients, one coefficient group, two coefficient groups, four coefficient groups, one transform unit, or one transform block, and wherein N corresponds to 16, 32, 48, or 64 (Figure 1 shows a larger TU 410 with a size of 16×16 coefficients, which is divided into 16 coefficient groups with the size 4×4, of which the first CG is denoted by reference numeral 420).
Regarding claim 6 Filippov discloses the method of Claim1, wherein said one or more target coefficients in the current segment correspond to a first non-zero coefficient, an Mth non-zero coefficient or a last non-zero coefficient in the current segment (Figure 1 shows a first and last non-zero coefficient of a Coefficient Group).
Regarding claim 7 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein when said one or more segments correspond to at least two segments (refer to Figure 1). However, fails to explicitly disclose, after the quantization coefficients are determined for a first segment, a dependent quantization state is reset to an initial state, or keeping not changed through remaining said target coefficients in the residual block.
In his disclosure Schwarz teaches when said one or more segments correspond to at least two segments, after the quantization coefficients are determined for a first segment, a dependent quantization state is reset to an initial state, or keeping not changed through remaining said target coefficients in the residual block (refer to Figure 16).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Schwarz into the teachings of Filippov because such incorporation results in having reconstructed transform coefficients being calculated by algorithms with a very low computational complexity (paragraph 122).
Regarding claim 8 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the parity information of the current segment corresponds to a sum of quantization coefficient levels or a sum of absolute quantization coefficient levels (if the sign is “+”, the parity of absolute values of quantized transform coefficients should be kept even – [0007, 0009, 0019]).
Regarding claim 9 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the parity information of the current segment corresponds to a sum of states associated with the quantization coefficients (if the sign is “+”, the parity of absolute values of quantized transform coefficients should be kept even – [0007, 0009, 0019]).
Regarding claim 10 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said one or more target coefficients in the current segment correspond to two target coefficients (Figure 1 shows a first coefficient group having two target coefficients).
Regarding claim 11 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein two signs for the two target coefficients are determined according to the sign-hiding state, the parity information of the current segment, or both (determine whether or not sign data hiding was applied based on conditions and/or information extracted from a bitstream (such as a flag indicating whether or not SBH is allowed) – [0015-0019]).
Regarding claim 12 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein one of the two signs is determined according to the sign-hiding state and another of the two signs is determined according to the parity information of the current segment (check, whether conditions for applying sign bit hiding are fulfilled for the CG; determine the first non-zero coefficient in the CG and its sign, calculate parity of the sum of all absolute coefficient values in the CG, embed the determined sign: If the calculated parity corresponds to the determined sign, no modification of coefficient values is necessary. Otherwise, a value of one of the coefficients the CG is modified by increasing or decreasing it by one, so that the parity corresponds to the determined sign – [0015-0019]).
Regarding claim 13 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said one or more sign-hiding quantization coefficients are allowed when one or more conditions are satisfied (determine whether or not sign data hiding was applied based on conditions and/or information extracted from a bitstream (such as a flag indicating whether or not SBH is allowed) – [0015-0019]).
Regarding claim 14 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 13, wherein said one or more conditions comprise a number of non-zero coefficients in the current segment or in the residual block being larger than one or more threshold (for each TU (Transform Unit) satisfying the condition that the number of coefficients between the first PFSC and last PLSC nonzero coefficients is greater than a threshold Dthr: the sign bit for the first nonzero coefficient is embedded into the parity of the sum of all nonzero coefficients – [0006]).
Regarding claim 15 Filippov discloses the method of Claim 13, wherein said one or more conditions comprise a distance between the first non-zero coefficient and the last non-zero coefficient in the current segment or in the residual block being larger than one or more threshold (for each TU (Transform Unit) satisfying the condition that the number of coefficients between the first PFSC and last PLSC nonzero coefficients is greater than a threshold Dthr: the sign bit for the first nonzero coefficient is embedded into the parity of the sum of all nonzero coefficients – [0006]).
In regards to claim 16, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 17 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 18 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 16. Therefore, claim 18 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2482