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
This Office Action is in response to communications filed 03/20/2026. Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim interpretation, the applicant argues that the continent step need not be performed if the condition is not met, it does not mandate that such conditions be ignored when analyzing the method as a whole. It is a mandatory algorithm step that defines how a bitstream is structured and parsed.
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The mandatory algorithmic step is if something happens, else this. Therefore, by the applicant’s own claim limitations, if 1, this, else this. The function of if this is not required.
The claim has contingent limitations. The limitations are not written as steps that need to be performed if a condition is met. The claim language is not a data structure, the claim is a method.
The MPEP explicitly provides an example in the following:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.”
The claim explicitly states if A (transform skip enabled information) is 1 or B (palette coding enabled information) is 1, C (minimum quantization information is included) is included (i.e. A is 1, C is included, B is 1, C is included, A and B are 1, C is included) and if both A and B are 0, C is not included. The claim states based on value of A (1 or 0), D occurs (value is 0: transform applied) or E occurs (value is 1: transform skip and deriving residual sample based on C), based on value of B (1 or 0), B is enabled (value of 1) and F occurs based on C (escape value). There is no description of based on case B is not applied.
Claim 1-3 has contingencies:
First set of contingencies
A value of transform skip enabled information is 1,…minimum quantization information is included
value of palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization information is included, or
both are 1, minimum quantization information is included, or
the value of transform skip enabled information and the value of palette coding enabled information are 0, minimum quantization information is not included.
Second set of contingencies
Wherein the value of transform skip enabled information,
Transform skip enabled information is 0, transform is applied or
based on a case that transform is not applied to the current block (this is when transform skip is enabled, the value is 1 per the applicant’s specification) and the residual sample is derived based on minimum quantization parameter information,
Wherein the value of palette coding enabled information…
based on a case that palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether palette mode is applied, based on case palette mode is applied, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter, or
No required function (no claim limitation for the case when the palette coding enable information is “0”)
The claim does not require both transform skip and palette coding by its own claim language, only 1 is required. The claim does not require a transform, a transform skip, and palette coding not be applied. These are all separate clauses.
The MPEP states that a system (or apparatus or product) requires the structure performing the function which would be include the structure to be capable of performing the function but this is different from a method because the system claim has the structure.
The MPEP further states When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Regarding the prior art rejection with Zhao, the applicant argues that minimum QP information is included if and only if one of the transform skip or palette coding is enabled. The applicant argues that these steps are mandatory. This interdependent signaling structure is designed to save number of bits to eliminate redundant or unnecessary data … This is not a mere contingent outcome. The applicant argues that Zhao discloses independent syntax elements. The applicant argues that if both flags are 0 that the minimum QP is not included and Zhao does not teach this limitations.
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim has contingent limitations. See above for response to arguments for contingencies.
In response to applicant's argument that “This interdependent signaling structure is specifically designed to save the number of bits being transmitted by eliminating redundant or unnecessary data from the bitstream when the coding tools that rely on such information are inactive…it is a deliberate and efficient data structure limitation that enhances the overall compression efficiency of the video codec,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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., save the number of bits being transmitted by eliminating redundant or unnecessary data from the bitstream when the coding tools that rely on such information are inactive 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).
The minimum quantization parameter information is included if the palette mode is 1 or transform skip mode is 1. The claim limitations do not state when the minimum qp information has to be parsed, simply that it is included.
Zhao discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 8, paragraph 0097 – both the values of transform skip and palette coding are 1). Zhao disclose that the minimum QP for transform skip may be signaled – it is necessarily, that the value of transform skip enabled is 1 as minimum QP is being signaled for a transform skip, paragraph 0097 recites that transform skip mode is when the transform skip flag is 1. Zhao discloses wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block, and wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 7, paragraph 0089, Page 8, paragraph 0097, Page 16, paragraph 0144, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 20, paragraph 0212, enabled flag as 1 for transform skip mode is determining a transform is not applied). Zhao discloses wherein based on the palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether a palette mode is applied to the current block, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, palette mode is enabled).
Regarding prior art rejection of Samuellson and Jhu, the applicant argues that Samuelsson discloses each syntax element for sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, sps_palette_enabled_flag, min_qp_prime_ts_minus4 is signaled in SPS. The applicant argues that Samuellson is similar to Zhao. The applicant argues Jhu focus on the harmonizations of calculations for quantization and does not teach a signaling structure in the SPS that conditionally includes or excludes this syntax element.
In response to the argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim has contingent limitations. See above for response to arguments for contingencies.
The minimum quantization parameter information is included if the palette mode is 1 or transform skip mode is 1. The claim limitations do not state when the minimum qp information has to be parsed, simply that it is included. Samuellson discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, sps_palette_enabled_flag – Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139). Samuellson is not use to teach the remaining limitations.
Jhu discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (transform skip flag – it must be 1 for the transform skip block– Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054), wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block, and wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054- transform skip is 1 ). The argument of the value of minimum QP is 4 is unpersuasive as no mention of value was disclosed in the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that “This interdependent signaling structure is specifically designed to save the number of bits being transmitted by eliminating redundant or unnecessary data from the bitstream when the coding tools that rely on such information are inactive…it is a deliberate and efficient data structure limitation that enhances the overall compression efficiency of the video codec,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Interpretation
Note that the limitation “wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information, and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information, wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block,” are contingent limitations and are not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to transform skip enabled information and palette coding enabled information with minimum quantization information are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II.
Claim 1-3 has contingencies:
First set of contingencies
A value of transform skip enabled information is 1,…minimum quantization information is included
value of palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization information is included, or
both are 1, minimum quantization information is included, or
the value of transform skip enabled information and the value of palette coding enabled information are 0, minimum quantization information is not included.
Second set of contingencies
Wherein the value of transform skip enabled information,
Transform skip enabled information is 0, transform is applied or
based on a case that transform is not applied to the current block (this is when transform skip is enabled, the value is 1 per the applicant’s specification) and the residual sample is derived based on minimum quantization parameter information,
Wherein the value of palette coding enabled information…
based on a case that palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether palette mode is applied, based on case palette mode is applied, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter, or
No required function (no claim limitation for the case when the palette coding enable information is “0”)
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (US 2022/0286701 and hereafter referred to as “Zhao”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
It is noted that claim 1-3 has contingent limitations and the contingent limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining image information including palette coding enabled information and transform skip enabled information from a bitstream (Page 6, paragraph 0075, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9); and
generating a reconstructed sample based on the palette coding enabled information and the transform skip enabled information (Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9).
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 8, paragraph 0097), and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block, and wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 7, paragraph 0089, Page 8, paragraph 0097, Page 16, paragraph 0144, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 20, paragraph 0212, enabled flag as 1 for transform skip mode is determining a transform is not applied) and
wherein based on the palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether a palette mode is applied to the current block, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, palette mode is enabled).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao discloses an image encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
generating transform skip enabled information based on whether a transform is applied to a current block (Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9);
generating palette coding enabled information based on whether palette mode is applied to the current block (Figure 1, Figure 2, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9); and
encoding image information including the transform skip enabled information and the palette coding enabled information (Page 6, paragraph 0075, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9),
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9), and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 7, paragraph 0089, Page 8, paragraph 0097, Page 16, paragraph 0144, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 20, paragraph 0212, enabled flag as 1 for transform skip mode is determining a transform is not applied – see claim interpretation section above), and
wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao discloses a transmission method of data for image, the transmission method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is generated by performing generating transform skip enabled information based on whether transform is applied to a current block (Page 6, paragraph 0075, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9),
generating palette coding enabled information based on whether palette mode is applied to the current block (Figure 1, Figure 2, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9), and
generating the bitstream by encoding image information including the transform skip enabled information and the palette coding enabled information (Page 6, paragraph 0075, Page 7, paragraph 0086, 0088, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9),
and
transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (Figure 1, transmitting, Figure 2, outputting bitstream for transmitting, Page 21, paragraph 0203),
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9), and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 7, paragraph 0089, Page 8, paragraph 0097, Page 16, paragraph 0144, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9, Page 20, paragraph 0212, enabled flag as 1 for transform skip mode is determining a transform is not applied ), and
wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 20, paragraph 0186, Page 16-17, Tables 7-9).
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Samuelsson et al (US 2022/0353536 and hereafter referred to as “Samuelsson”)
in view of Jhu (US 2022/0217349 and hereafter referred to as “Helmrich”).
It is noted that claim 1-3 has contingent limitations and the contingent limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II. and claim interpretation section .
Regarding Claim 1, Samuelsson discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining image information including palette coding enabled information and transform skip enabled information from a bitstream (Page 48, paragraph 0666, Figure 6, Table 3 starts at Page 9, paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 2, paragraph 0017-0018); and
generating a reconstructed sample based on the palette coding enabled information and the transform skip enabled information (Page 38, paragraph 0570, see also paragraph 0569, Page 48, paragraph 0664, 0666),
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, sps_palette_enabled_flag – Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139)
Samuelsson does not explicitly disclose wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information, wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block, and wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Jhu discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (transform skip flag– Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054) and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a value of the transform skip enabled information, it is determined whether a transform is applied to a current block, and wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information (Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054), and
wherein based on the palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether a palette mode is applied to the current block, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Samuelsson to include the missing limitations as taught by Jhu in order to minimize degradation to video quality (paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Jhu.
Regarding Claim 2, Samuelsson discloses an image encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
generating transform skip enabled information based on whether a transform is applied to a current block (Figure 1, 106, Figure 5, Page 48, paragraph 0666, Figure 6, sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, Table 3 starts at Page 9, paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 2, paragraph 0017-001);
generating palette coding enabled information based on whether palette mode is applied to the current block (sps_palette_enabled_flag – Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139); and
encoding image information including the transform skip enabled information and the palette coding enabled information (Figure 1, Figure 5, Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139),
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, sps_palette_enabled_flag – Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139), and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information.
Samuelsson does not explicitly disclose wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Jhu discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (transform skip flag– Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, , Page 5, paragraph 0054) and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information, (Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054), and
wherein based on the palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether a palette mode is applied to the current block, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Samuelsson to include the missing limitations as taught by Jhu in order to minimize degradation to video quality (paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Jhu.
Regarding Claim 3, Samuelsson discloses a transmission method of data for image, the transmission method comprising:
obtaining a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is generated by performing generating transform skip enabled information based on whether transform is applied to a current block (Figure 1, Figure 5, Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139),
generating palette coding enabled information based on whether palette mode is applied to the current block (Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139), and
generating the bitstream by encoding image information including the transform skip enabled information and the palette coding enabled information (Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139, Figure 1, Figure 5),
and
transmitting the data comprising the bitstream (Figure 1, transmitting, Figure 5, outputting bitstream for transmitting, Page 47, paragraph 0661 ),
wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (sps_transform_skip_enabled_flag, sps_palette_enabled_flag – Page 9, Table 3 starts at paragraph 0101, Page 16, paragraph 0210, Page 17-18, paragraph 0238, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 12 paragraph 0139), and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information.
Samuelsson does not explicitly disclose wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Jhu discloses wherein based on a condition that a value of the transform skip enabled information is 1 or a value of the palette coding enabled information is 1, minimum quantization parameter information is included in the image information (transform skip flag– Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, , Page 5, paragraph 0054) and wherein based on a condition that both the value of the transform skip enabled information and the value of the palette coding enabled information are 0, the minimum quantization parameter information is not included in the image information,
wherein based on a case that the transform is not applied to the current block, a residual sample is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information, (Page 6, Table 5, Page 8, paragraph 0089, Page 5, paragraph 0054), and
wherein based on the palette coding enabled information, it is determined whether a palette mode is applied to the current block, and wherein based on a case that the palette mode is applied to the current block, an escape value is derived based on the minimum quantization parameter information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Samuelsson to include the missing limitations as taught by Jhu in order to minimize degradation to video quality (paragraph 0003) as disclosed by Jhu.
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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
March 19, 2026