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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Han discloses (figure 7, [0115]-[0119]) the probability table 700 includes two different block portions--block portion B and block portion A. Each of the block portions is associated with a current block size that is being processed. For example, block portion A of the probability table 700 is used for making decisions related to a split of a block having block size A to block size B (e.g., 64.times.64 to 32.times.32). Block portion B of the probability table 700 is used for making decisions related to a split of a block having block size B to, for example, block size C (e.g., 32.times.32 to 16.times.16). Although not shown, additional block portions and/or sizes (including non-square sizes) can be included.
Each portion corresponds to one probability table, wherein the number of partition types in each portion is less than the number of available partition types.
For example, in block portion A, the probability value P1 (in row P) can represent a probability of no partitioning of a 64.times.64 block, the probability value P2 can represent a probability of a vertical split of a 64.times.64 block, and the probability value P3 can represent a probability of a horizontal split of a 64.times.64 block. There are three partition types in block portion A.
For example, in block portion B, the probability value G1 (in row G) can represent a probability of no partitioning of a 32.times.32 block, the probability value G2 can represent a probability of a vertical split of a 32.times.32 block, and the probability value G3 can represent a probability of a horizontal split of a 32.times.32 block. There are three partition types in block portion B.
P1, P2, P3, G1, G2, G3 correspond to six partition types.
Therefore, Han discloses the cardinality of symbols associated with the probability table is less than a cardinality of available partition types.
Han discloses ([0042]) probability models for partition type coding may be conditioned on one or more of the following factors: a current block size. Inherently, the block size is determined first, then probability models for partition type coding may be conditioned on that.
Therefore, Han discloses determining a block size of a block.
In response to applicant's argument that SASAI or LELEANNEC doesn’t teach corresponding limitations in claim 2 and claim 3, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 2 and claim 3 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is to reduce the memory usage (SASAI [0015]), and more efficiently code the image.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No support can be found in the application specification for “select, in accordance with the block size, the variable from among a plurality of variables associated with the available probability tables” or “selecting the probability table includes selecting, using the block size, the variable from among a plurality of variables defined for signaling the partition type”.
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.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claims 20-22, Kadono discloses One or more memory or storage devices having stored thereon a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claims, “an encoded bitstream” is not given patentable weight, because “an encoded bitstream” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claims 20-22.
Claims 1, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 20150189269 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Han discloses A method of decoding (figure 3), comprising:
determining a block size of a block ([0042] probability models for partition type coding may be conditioned on one or more of the following factors: a current block size (inherently, the block size is determined first, then probability models for partition type coding may be conditioned on that));
selecting, based on the block size, a probability table for entropy coding a variable identifying a partition type for the block (figure 7, [0115]-[0119]; [0042] probability models for partition type coding may be conditioned on one or more of the following factors: a current block size; [0047] The entropy encoding stage 226 may be configured to generate one or more probability tables and generate one or more probability values to populate the probability tables; figure 3, [0051] The decoder 300 may include an entropy decoding stage 314), wherein the probability table is selected from multiple available probability tables (figure 7, [0115]-[0119]; [0069] this work employs an array of probability models to capture the above mentioned dependencies, as illustrated in FIG. 5. Further, this work computes an index number from the neighboring above/left block (A and B) partition types and the current block size, retrieves the corresponding probability model from the array, and uses the retrieved model for the entropy coding of the partition type of C);
entropy coding the variable using a cardinality of symbols associated with the probability table (figure 7, [0115]-[0119]; [0118] The probability values can represent values that can be used by an entropy coder. During encoding, the entropy coder can be configured to assign bit rates based on the probability values included in the probability table 700; [0067] context-based entropy encoding of partition type; [0069] retrieves the corresponding probability model from the array, and uses the retrieved model for the entropy coding of the partition type of C), wherein the cardinality of symbols is less than a cardinality of available partition types (figure 7, [0115] the probability table 700 includes two different block portions--block portion B and block portion A. Each of the block portions is associated with a current block size that is being processed (each portion corresponds to one probability table, wherein the number of partition types in each portion is less than the number of available partition types)); and
determining the partition type using the variable ([0110] the probability table includes a probability value associated with a partition type).
Regarding claim 10. The same analysis has been stated in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14. The same analysis has been stated in claim 9.
Regarding claim 15. The same analysis has been stated in claim 8.
Regarding claim 17. (New) Han discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to select, in accordance with the block size, the variable from among a plurality of variables associated with the available probability tables (figure 7, [0115]-[0119] the probability table 700 includes two different block portions--block portion B and block portion A. Each of the block portions is associated with a current block size that is being processed (see Response to Arguments, for example, P and G correspond to the variables)).
Regarding claim 18. (New) The same analysis has been stated in claim 17.
Regarding claim 20. (New) The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20150189269 A1) in view of SASAI et al. (US 20120328012 A1) or LELEANNEC et al. (EP3484150A1).
Regarding claim 2. Han discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the probability table comprises selecting the probability table based on the block size (see claim 1).
However, Han does not explicitly disclose selecting the probability table based on a position of the block relative to at least one boundary of an image containing the block.
SASAI discloses selecting the probability table based on a position of the block relative to at least one boundary of an image containing the block ([0089] the determining of a context may further include: determining whether or not the decoded control parameter of the upper block is available in decoding, based on a position of the current block; and determining the context under the second condition, when the decoded control parameter of the upper block is not available).
LELEANNEC discloses selecting the probability table based on the block size and a position of the block relative to at least one boundary of an image containing the block ([0047] The method M100 takes as input a current CU of position (x,y), size (w, h) and quad-tree depth currQTDepth. At step S120, the transmitter determines an index ctxld identifying for the current CU cu_split_flag a context).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Han, SASAI and LELEANNEC, to select the probability table based on the block size and a position of the block relative to at least one boundary of an image containing the block, in order to reduce the memory usage (SASAI [0015]), and more efficiently code the image.
Regarding claim 3. Han in view of SASAI and LELEANNEC discloses The method of claim 2, wherein selecting the probability table comprises selecting the probability table based on the block size and a position of the block relative to each of a vertical boundary and a horizontal boundary of the image (see claim 1; SASAI [0089] the determining of a context may further include: determining whether or not the decoded control parameter of the upper block is available in decoding, based on a position of the current block; and determining the context under the second condition, when the decoded control parameter of the upper block is not available; LELEANNEC [0047] The method M100 takes as input a current CU of position (x,y), size (w, h) and quad-tree depth currQTDepth. At step S120, the transmitter determines an index ctxld identifying for the current CU cu_split_flag a context (inherently, a position includes a vertical position and a horizontal position)).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 21. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Claim 16, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20150189269 A1) in view of LELEANNEC et al. (EP3484150A1).
Regarding claim 16. LELEANNEC discloses available partition types include 10 types (figure 3, figure 4, figure 6, figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Han and LELEANNEC, to define as many as 10 available partition types, in order to more flexibly and efficiently code the image.
Regarding claim 19. (New) Han in view of LELEANNEC discloses The method of claim 1, wherein:
the cardinality of available partition types is ten (Han figure 7, [0115]-[0119] the probability table 700 includes two different block portions--block portion B and block portion A. Although not shown, additional block portions and/or sizes (including non-square sizes) can be included (see Response to Arguments); LELEANNEC figure 3, figure 4, figure 6, figure 8); and
the cardinality of symbols is less than nine (Han figure 7, [0115]-[0119] the probability table 700 includes two different block portions--block portion B and block portion A. Each of the block portions is associated with a current block size that is being processed. Although not shown, additional block portions and/or sizes (including non-square sizes) can be included (see Response to Arguments); LELEANNEC figure 3, figure 4, figure 6, figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Han and LELEANNEC, in order to reduce the memory usage, and more flexibly and efficiently code the image.
Regarding claim 22. (New) the same analysis has been stated in claim 19.
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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights