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 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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al. (“Versatile Video Coding (Draft 3)” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 Document: JVET-L1001-v9 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, 3–12 Oct. 2018), hereinafter referred to as Bross, in view of Coban et al. (US20140003531A1), hereinafter referred to as Coban
Regarding claim 1, Bross discloses video decoding apparatus for decoding a picture, the video decoding apparatus comprising a decoder that decodes (See Section 7.1 - a decoder): a one bit syntax element equal to one and a byte alignment (See Section 7.3.4.1 tile_group_data( ) comprising the end_of_tile_one_bit /* equal to 1 */ and the byte_alignment( ) syntaxes),wherein the byte alignment is decoded based on (i) whether a CTU is a last CTU in a tile group (See Section 7.3.4.1 - if ( i < num_tiles_in_tile_group_minus1 ) then byte_alignment( ) )
Bross does not explicitly disclose an entropy coding synchronization enabled flag in a parameter set, wherein the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag indicates whether a synchronization process for Context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding is performed for a first CTU of a CTU row, and
and (ii) whether a CTU is a right most CTU of a CTU row, in the case that a value of the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag equal to one.
However, Coban from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses an entropy coding synchronization enabled flag in a parameter set (See ¶ [0081], Table 3 - entropy_coding_sync_enabled_flag in pic_parameter_set_rbsp()) , wherein the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag indicates whether a synchronization process for Context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding is performed for a first CTU of a CTU row (See ¶ [0025] - when implementing WPP, a video coder may partition a picture into a plurality of wavefronts and ¶ [0063] - coding scheme described herein can ensure that all data needed for coding the block, e.g., using CABAC, is available. Coban discloses that WWP requires synchronization to allow parallel coding of wavefronts (rows). See also FIG, 2 ), and
and (ii) whether a CTU is a right most CTU of a CTU row, in the case that a value of the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag equal to one (See ¶ [0070] - To parse or decode multiple sub-streams in parallel, the video decoder needs to determine the "entry points" of the tiles and ¶ [0085] - if both tiles and WPP are enabled in a picture, then the video coder can interpret the entry points signaled in the slice headers as WPP
entry points. Coban discloses that WPP (flag=1) creates sub-streams (rows) that require entry points which requires byte alignments at the end of the previous segment ( the right most CTU) to align the start of the next).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bross to add the teachings of Coban as above, in order to ensure that all data needed for coding the block, e.g., using CABAC, is available when coding a block at a particular position (Coban, [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Bross and Coban disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bross discloses the video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the byte alignment is not decoded for the last CTU in the tile group (See Section 7.3.4.1 - if ( i < num_tiles_in_tile_group_minus1 ) then byte_alignment( ), check fails for the last tile skipping the byte_alignment( ) )
Regarding claim 3, Bross and Coban disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bross discloses the video decoding apparatus of claim 1, wherein the byte alignment is decoded (i) the CTU is not the last CTU in the tile group (See Section 7.3.4.1 - if ( i < num_tiles_in_tile_group_minus1 ) then byte_alignment( ), check fails for the last tile skipping the byte_alignment( ) )
Bross does not explicitly disclose the (ii) the CTU is the right most CTU of the CTU row, in the case that the value of the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag equal to one.
However, Coban from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the (ii) the CTU is the right most CTU of the CTU row, in the case that the value of the entropy coding synchronization enabled flag equal to one (See ¶¶[0025] and [0070] disclosing that when the flag is one (WPP enable), alignment is required for WPP sub-streams (rows))
The motivation for combining Bross and Coban has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding apparatus of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a encoding apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coban.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is 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 non-transitory computer readable 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 non-transitory computer readable medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 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 structure 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 non-transitory computer readable medium storing data and is anticipated by Coban which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream (See Coban, ¶[0034] ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486