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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This action is in reply to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 2/12/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim limitation “independently obtaining the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight, wherein a sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight meets one of the following conditions: the sum is equal to 1;the sum is less than 1; or the sum is greater than 1; and wherein obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the first probability, the first adaptive weight, the second probability, and the second adaptive weight comprises: obtaining a third probability as a weighted sum of the first probability multiplied with the first adaptive weight and the second probability multiplied with the second adaptive weight and obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the third probability and a comparison result between 1 and the sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight.” recited in claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants contend the combination of Said and PERINGASSERY does not teach the above claimed features (Applicants’ Remarks dated 2/12/2026, p. 9-11). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. FIG. 4 and 7 and paragraph [0028-0031 and 0043-0048] of Said in view of paragraph [0076-0088] of PERINGASSERY disclose the above claim features (please see detail mappings in section 9 below).
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended or newly added claims and originally presented claims have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Said et al (US 20190387232 A1).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 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 21 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 Said which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream [See Said; [0057]; storage media for storing encoded video data].
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said et al (US 20190387232 A1) in view of PERINGASSERY et al (US 20230291905 A1 with priority date of 3/10/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Said discloses a method for video decoding [e.g. FIG. 4], comprising: obtaining a first probability for one binary symbol according to a first adaptation parameter [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0033 and 120]; calculate a probability of a symbol having a particular value; weighted probability estimation], wherein the one binary symbol is related to one given context model for the binary arithmetic decoder and the one binary symbol is from a plurality of binary symbols associated with the context model [e.g. FIG. 3-4; [0079]; context model to a symbol]; obtaining a second probability for the one binary symbol according to a second adaptation parameter [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031 and 0043-0048]; adaptive probability estimation based on plurality of weights; scaled probability]; obtaining a probability [e.g. p[k+1];] according to the first probability [e.g. Q1(k+1) a first adaptive weight [e.g. W1], the second probability [e.g. Q2(k+1)], and a second adaptive weight [e.g. W2], wherein the probability determines a probability of the one binary symbol equaling to a binary value [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031 and 120]; calculate a probability of a symbol having a particular value; i.e. b[k] is {0, 1}]; and decoding the one binary symbol according to the probability [e.g. FIG. 4 and 6-7; decoding the encoded value of symbol], wherein the method further comprises: independently obtaining the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031 and 0043-0048]; adaptive probability estimation based on plurality of weights; scaled probability], wherein a sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight meets one of following conditions: the sum is equal to 1; the sum is less than 1; or the sum is greater than 1 [e.g. [0044]; weighted probability estimations; the sum of the weights is one of these three conditions; <1, or >1, or =1]. obtaining a third probability as a weighted combination of the first probability and the second probability according to the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight [e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031 and 0043-0048]].
Although Said discloses determining a probability of the one binary symbol, it is noted that PERINGASSERY differs to the present invention in that Said fails to explicitly disclose obtaining a multi-hypothesis probability.
However, PERINGASSERY teaches the well-known concept of obtaining a multi-hypothesis probability [e.g. [0002 and 0076-0080]; performing multi-hypothesis probability model to calculate the final probability for arithmetic coding] according to a first probability, a first adaptive weight, a second probability, and a second adaptive weight [e.g. [0084]; probability hypothesis p1, p2, …pn and weights w1, w2,…wn or update rates
α
1
,
α
2
,
…
], wherein the method further comprises: independently obtaining the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weigh [e.g. [0084]; probability hypothesis p1, p2, …pn and weights w1, w2,…wn update rates
α
1
,
α
2
,
…
], wherein a sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight meets one of following conditions: the sum is equal to 1; the sum is less than 1; or the sum is greater than 1 [e.g. [0084]; weighted probability estimations; the sum of the weights is one of these three conditions; <1, or >1, or =1]; and wherein obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the first probability, the first adaptive weight, the second probability [e.g. p1 and p2], and the second adaptive weight [e.g. update rates
α
1
,
α
2
,
…
], comprises: obtaining a third probability as a weighted sum of the first probability multiplied with the first adaptive weight and the second probability multiplied with the second adaptive weight and obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability according to the third probability [e.g. [0076-0084]; weighted probability estimations; the final probability update may be derived as the weighted sum] and a comparison result between 1 and the sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight [e.g. [0084-0088]; probability update rate is selected based on whether the frame type is a keyframe, intra frame (faster update rate), or inter frame (slower update rates)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Said to exploit the well-known obtaining a multi-hypothesis probability for arithmetic coding technique taught by PERINGASSERY as above, in order to provide improved coding performance [See PERINGASSERY; [0076]].
Regarding claim 2, Said and PERINGASSERY further disclose obtaining the first adaptive weight from a pre-defined range; and obtaining the second adaptive weight from the pre-defined range [e.g. Said: [0044]].
Regarding claim 4, Said and PERINGASSERY further disclose in response to determining that the sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight is greater than 1, obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability by applying a right shift operation to the third probability [Said: e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0043-0048]; right shift operation].
Regarding claim 5, Said and PERINGASSERY further disclose in response to determining that the sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight is greater than 1, obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability by dividing the third probability by a constant value [Said: e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0043-0048]; dividing by 2 or
2
S
].
Regarding claim 6, Said and PERINGASSERY further disclose in response to determining that the sum of the first adaptive weight and the second adaptive weight is no greater than 1, obtaining the multi-hypothesis probability being equal to the third probability [Said: e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031, 0043-0048 and 145]; adaptive probability estimation based on plurality of weights; scaled probability; PERINGASSERY: [0076-0084]].
Regarding claim 9-10, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 1-2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 4 and 5 together above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15-16, this is a method for video encoding that includes same limitation as in claim 1-2 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, this is a method for video encoding that includes same limitation as in claim 4 and 5 together above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 21-23, this is a method for video encoding that includes same limitation as in claim 15 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7-8, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said et al (US 20190387232 A1) in view of PERINGASSERY et al (US 20230291905 A1 with priority date of 3/10/2022) and “ITU-T H.265 Series H: AUDIOVISUAL AND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS Infrastructure of audiovisual services – Coding of moving video” (08/2021), hereinafter referred to as H.265.
Regarding claim 7, Said and PERINGASSERY further disclose determining the first adaptive weight , but Said and PERINGASSERY fail to explicitly obtaining the first adaptive weight from a set of predetermined weight values.
However, H.265 from the same or similar endeavor of video compression discloses according to the context model from a set of predetermined integer weight values in a weight initialization table [e.g. 9.3.2.2; P210-212: Table 9-17 to 9-25; and Section 9.3.4].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the decoding system disclosed by Said to exploit the well-known obtaining a multi-hypothesis probability for arithmetic coding technique taught by PERINGASSERY and the well-known context weight initialization technique as above, in order to provide improved coding performance [See PERINGASSERY; [0076]] and higher compression of moving picture [See H.265; Summary].
Regarding claim 8, Said, PERINGASSERY and H.265 further disclose obtaining the set of predetermined weight values from a set of predetermined integer values divided by one constant value [Said: e.g. FIG. 4 and 7; [0028-0031, 0043-0048 and 145]; adaptive probability estimation based on plurality of weights; scaled probability; PERINGASSERY: [0076-0084]; H.265; 9.3.2.2; P210-212: Table 9-17 to 9-25; and Section 9.3.4].
Regarding claim 13-14, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 7-8 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, this is a method for video encoding that includes same limitation as in claim 7 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, this is a method for video encoding that includes same limitation as in claim 4, 5 and 8 together above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (US 20190230350 A1).
XU et al (US 20230254489 A1).
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 ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483