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 Status
This Office Action responds to application 18/950462 filed on 3/17/26. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al., US 2018/0343471 A1 (hereinafter Jacobson) in view of Guo et al., US 2013/0195199 A1 (hereinafter Guo) as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 11/17/25.
Response to Amendment
Applicant 's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites fundamentally different type of syntax element and functionality than Guo. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though Applicant argues that the claimed flag corresponds to CBF, the claim is silent about this because the claim does not mention CBF. Instead, as Applicant admits, the flag is merely an indication of having non-zero transform coefficients, not specifically CBF. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate to the claim language, thus, is moot.
Applicant further argues that as the CBF and split flag of Guo serve different purposes and the context modelings are not interchangeable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if the flag is, arguendo, CBF, note that MPEP states that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." MPEP 2141.03 I. MPEP. In this case, Jacobson teaches the flag for another component which is mapped to the first flag as presented in the Office Action. Guo teaches selecting a context for a flag depending on an anther flag as presented in the Office Action. As the person having ordinary skill has ability to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle, the person would be able to combine the teaching of Guo into Jacobson. More specifically, even if underlying context modeling are different, the Guo’s teaching of the selecting a context based on another flag is the same, thus it can be combined into Jacobson with a necessary low-level modification using the creativity of the person having ordinary skill and creativity. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the context selection in entropy coding and that in split flag are different and there is no reasoned basis to apply one to another. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As MPEP sates, as presented above, the person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. As the person having ordinary skill has ability to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle, the person would be able to combine the teaching of Guo into Jacobson. More specifically, even if underlying probability distributions are different, the Guo’s teaching of the selecting a context based on another flag is the same, thus it can be combined into Jacobson with a necessary modification in probability distribution by the creativity of the person having ordinary skill and creativity. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 2 that Jacobson does not disclose any selected context or selecting context. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is attacking references individually. MPEP states that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145 IV. In the instant application, selecting context is taught by Guo as presented in the rejection of the claim 1. As the claim 2 depends on the claim 1, the combination of Jacobson and Guo teaches the selection of the contexts. The same reasoning applies to claim 6, 10, and 14. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The rejection is repeated above for the sake of completeness.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
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 JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights