DETAILED ACTION
Claims 32-51 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under EP 19306753 filed on 12/23/2019.
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) 32, 37, 42, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno, US 2020/0162735 A1 (Ueno).
Regarding Claim 32, Ueno discloses a video decoding device, comprising: a processor configured to: receive, via a first transform unit (TU) that is associated with a zero coefficient, a coding unit (CU) quantization parameter (QP) adjustment value; obtain an adjusted QP associated with a second TU based on the CU QP adjustment value; and decode a CU that comprises the first TU and the second TU, wherein the second TU is decoded using the adjusted QP (Ueno [0158] – the quantization parameter adjuster 145 (the quantization parameter setting unit 152) sets the quantization parameter for each TU; [0164] – In a case where the quantization parameter adjuster 145 adjusts the quantization parameter for each TU, the adjusted quantization parameter is added to the bit stream for each TU. That is, in this case, the adjusted quantization parameter is added to the bit stream and supplied to the decoding side (the decoding device or the like) similarly to a case of a normal quantization parameter conforming to the HEVC standard. Accordingly, it is possible for the device on the decoding side (the decoding device or the like) to decode the encoded data generated with use of the quantization parameter transmitted for each TU by a decoding method conforming to HEVC).
With regard to claim 37, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 32 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 32 is applied to claim 37.
With regard to claim 42, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 32 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 32 is applied to claim 42.
With regard to claim 47, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 32 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 32 is applied to claim 47.
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(s) 33, 38, 43, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, in view of Van Der Auwera et al, US 2014/0079135 A1 (VDA).
Regarding Claim 33, Ueno discloses the video decoding device of claim 32, as outlined above.
However, Ueno does not explicitly disclose the CU is decoded based on a constraint on QP adjustment value back-propagation.
VDA teaches wherein the CU is decoded based on a constraint on QP adjustment value back-propagation (VDA [0117] – Video encoder 20 may associate each CU with a QP value. The QP value associated with a CU may determine how video encoder 20 quantizes transform coefficient blocks associated with the CU. Video encoder 20 may adjust the degree of quantization applied to the transform coefficient blocks associated with a CU by adjusting the QP value associated with the CU; [0151] – After transform processing unit 104 generates a transform coefficient block associated with a TU, quantization unit 106 may quantize the transform coefficients in the transform coefficient block. Quantization unit 106 may quantize a transform coefficient block associated with a TU of a CU based on a QP value associated with the CU; [0186] – Inverse quantization unit 154 may determine a quantization parameter for a TU as the sum of a predicted quantization parameter value and a delta quantization parameter value. However, inverse quantization unit 154 may determine quantization groups of coefficient blocks having the same quantization parameter delta value to further reduce quantization parameter delta value signaling overhead).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Ueno where the CU is decoded based on a constraint on QP adjustment value back-propagation, as taught by VDA. One would be motivated as the back propagation of the QP’s may be limited by size of the blocks which could limit the processing of the block(s).
With regard to claim 38, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 33 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 33 is applied to claim 38.
With regard to claim 43, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 33 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 33 is applied to claim 43.
With regard to claim 48, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 33 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 33 is applied to claim 48.
Claim(s) 36, 41, 46, 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, in view of Van Der Zhao et al, US 2019/0052878 A1 (Zhao).
Regarding Claim 36, Ueno discloses the video decoding device of claim 32, as outlined above.
However, Ueno does not explicitly disclose obtaining an adjusted QP associated with the first TU based on the CU QP adjustment value and perform deblock filtering on the CU comprising the first TU based on the adjusted QP associated with the first TU
Zhao teaches obtain an adjusted QP associated with the first TU based on the CU QP adjustment value; and perform deblock filtering on the CU comprising the first TU based on the adjusted QP associated with the first TU ([0076] – QP[sub]adjust may be determined on a TU by TU basis to adjust a QP for quantization and a QP for deblocking may be determined on a CU level).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Ueno to obtain an adjusted QP associated with the first TU based on the CU QP adjustment value; and perform deblock filtering on the CU comprising the first TU based on the adjusted QP associated with the first TU, as taught by Zhao. One would be motivated as performing DF’ing based on an adjusted QP allows for optimal parameters set when filtering.
With regard to claim 41, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 36 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 36 is applied to claim 41.
With regard to claim 46, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 36 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 36 is applied to claim 46.
With regard to claim 51, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 36 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 36 is applied to claim 51.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 35, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49, 50 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record. The various claimed limitations mentioned including the interrelationships and all of the limitations of the base claim and the elements with respect to
the first TU precedes the second TU in a decoding order
the first TU associated with the zero coefficient does not comprise a coded coefficient
the first TU precedes the second TU in a decoding order
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483