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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 1, 3 and 3 lines from the bottom of paragraph [0350] of the Applicant’s Specification as filed, there are multiple instances of a “sps_epid_flag”, as best understood by the Examiner, this should be an “sps_eipd_flag”, see paragraph [0349] of the Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, there appears to be an extra space after “transform flag information”.
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: on the line before last, there appears to be a typo in “does not comprises”, as best understood by the Examiner, the limitation should state “does not comprise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. The Examiner would like to note that the method steps of claim 5, which refer to claim 4 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The computer-readable storage medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The computer-readable storage medium is merely serving as support for data created by the method.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a processor to execute the method steps listed in the claim to generate a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed towards a “computer-readable storage medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The office has determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer readable medium includes both transitory and non-transitory mediums (See MPEP 2106(II) or 2106.03(II)). Since the specification does not explicitly define the claimed computer-readable digital storage medium as a non-transitory medium, claim 5 includes at least one embodiment where the claimed bitstream is stored on a transitory medium. As a result, claim 5 is not directed towards any of the statutory categories.
The Examiner recommends adding the word “non-transitory” resulting in a “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to address the issue or in the alternative, canceling the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,261 in view of CHOI et al. ("Working Draft 2 of Essential Video Coding", Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, May 17, 2019), hereinafter Choi and Gao et al. (U.S. 2021/0144373), hereinafter Gao. Ramasubramonian and Choi were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/11/24 with copies provided in the parent application #17/689,641.
The U.S. Patent discloses the coding mode logic. The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations for the additional coding modes of Choi and Gao mapped with motivation below.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,261 in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. 2017/0280162), hereinafter Zhao.
The U.S. Patent does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream.
However, Zhao teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Zhao [0153]), the bitstream being generated by an image encoding method of claim 4 (see Claim Interpretation section above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Ramasubramonian with the missing limitations as taught by Choi to be able to apply different coding techniques conditioned on improved quantization and transform mode (Choi p. 45).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (U.S. 2017/0280162), hereinafter Zhao. Zhao was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/11/24.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Zhao [0153]), the bitstream being generated by an image encoding method of claim 4 (see Claim Interpretation section above).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian et al. ("MV-HEVC/SHVC HLS: On parameter sets", Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JCTVC-00214, Joint Collaborative Team on 3D Video Coding Extensions of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JCT3V-F0074, October 2013), hereinafter Ramasubramonian in view of CHOI et al. ("Working Draft 2 of Essential Video Coding", Motion Picture Expert Group or ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, May 17, 2019), hereinafter Choi and Gao et al. (U.S. 2021/0144373), hereinafter Gao. Ramasubramonian and Choi were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 11/11/24 with copies provided in the parent application #17/689,641. Ramasubramonian was a 12 page NPL filed 7/3/23 and Choi was a 118 page NPL filed 11/6/23 in the parent application.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ramasubramonian discloses an image decoding apparatus configured to:
obtain, from a sequence parameter set in a bitstream, first coding tool enable flag information, indicating whether or not the first coding tool is applied to an image sequence (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5);
when the first coding tool enable information indicates that the first coding tool is applied to the image sequence, obtain, from the sequence parameter set in the bitstream, second coding tool enable flag information related to whether or not the second coding tool is applicable to an image sequence (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5);
identify whether the second coding tool is applied to a block included in the image sequence, based on the second coding tool enable flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5); and
perform decoding on the block using the second coding tool (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5).
Ramasubramonian does not explicitly disclose that the first coding tool enable flag information can be an improved quantization and transform flag information indicating an improved quantization and transform mode is applied to an image sequence.
However, Choi teaches obtain, from a sequence parameter set in a bitstream, improved quantization and transform flag information, indicating whether or not improved quantization and transform mode is applied to an image sequence (Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag) and
the first coding tool enable flag information can be an improved quantization and transform flag information indicating an improved quantization and transform mode is applied to an image sequence (Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Ramasubramonian with the missing limitations as taught by Choi to be able to apply different coding techniques conditioned on using improved quantization and transform or not (Choi p. 45).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Ramasubramonian does not explicitly disclose a processor, the second coding tool enable flag information can be an adaptive transform selection flag information related to whether adaptive transform selection mode according to inter-prediction or intra-prediction is applicable to an image sequence, identify whether the adaptive transform selection mode is applied to a block included in the image sequence, based on the adaptive transform selection flag and perform decoding on the block using the adaptive transform selection mode.
However, Gao teaches an image decoding apparatus comprising at least one processor (Gao [0358]) configured to:
when the first coding tool enable information indicates that the improved quantization and transform mode is applied to the image sequence, obtain, from the sequence parameter set in the bitstream, adaptive transform selection flag information related to whether or not adaptive transform selection mode according to inter-prediction or intra-prediction is applicable to an image sequence (Gao [0212] and [0215]);
the second coding tool enable flag information can be an adaptive transform selection flag information related to whether adaptive transform selection mode according to inter-prediction or intra-prediction is applicable to an image sequence (Gao [0212] and [0215]);
identify whether the adaptive transform selection mode is applied to a block included in the image sequence, based on the adaptive transform selection flag information (Gao [0212] and [0215]); and
perform decoding on the block using the adaptive transform selection mode (Gao [0358]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Ramasubramonian in view of Choi with the missing limitations as taught by Gao to address problems of ISP implicit transform core selection complexity (Gao [0212]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Ramasubramonian in view of Choi and Gao teaches an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
encoding an image sequence based on at least one coding tool from among a plurality of coding tools comprising improved quantization and transform mode and adaptive transform selection mode (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5, Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag and Gao [0212]);
generating at least one of improved quantization and transform flag information indicating whether or not the improved quantization and transform mode is to be applied to the image sequence, and adaptive transform selection flag information indicating whether or not the adaptive transform selection mode is to be applicable to the image sequence (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5 and Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag); and
generating a bitstream comprising image sequence data that comprises syntax elements generated as a result of the encoding (Gao [0143]), and a sequence parameter set comprising the improved quantization and transform flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5 and Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag) and the adaptive transform selection flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5 and Gao [0212]),
wherein, when a value of the improved quantization and transform flag information is 1, the sequence parameter set in the bitstream comprises both of the improved quantization and transform flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5 and Choi p. 45, sps_iqt_flag) and the adaptive transform selection flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5 and Gao [0212]), and when the value of the improved quantization and transform flag information is 0, the sequence parameter set in the bitstream comprises the improved quantization and transform flag information and does not comprises the adaptive transform selection flag information (Ramasubramonian pgs. 4-5).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 3 applies to the missing limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Ramasubramonian in view of Choi and Gao teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, performed by an image encoding apparatus, the method comprising: encoding an image sequence based on at least one coding tool from among a plurality of coding tools comprising improved quantization and transform mode and adaptive transform selection mode; generating at least one of improved quantization and transform flag information indicating whether or not the improved quantization and transform mode is to be applied to the image sequence, and adaptive transform selection flag information indicating whether or not the adaptive transform selection mode is to be applicable to the image sequence; generating a bitstream comprising image sequence data that comprises syntax elements generated as a result of the encoding, and a sequence parameter set comprising the improved quantization and transform flag information and the adaptive transform selection flag information; and transmitting the bitstream to an image decoding apparatus (Gao [0143]), wherein, when a value of the improved quantization and transform flag information is 1, the sequence parameter set in the bitstream comprises both of the improved quantization and transform flag information and the adaptive transform selection flag information, and when the value of the improved quantization and transform flag information is 0, the sequence parameter set in the bitstream comprises the improved quantization and transform flag information and does not comprises the adaptive transform selection flag information (see claim 4).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 3 applies to the missing limitations of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Further, the double patenting rejection above would need to be overcome, potentially with a eTerminal disclaimer preferably.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. 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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482