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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 3/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to statutory matter under USC 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite routine high level of generality that any decoder utilizes. In addition, there is no computer or processor for the decoder and can be recognized as software. In other words, the decoder has no physical circuitry but receives, parses, obtain and reconstruct data. There is nothing that improves the functioning of the computer itself. USC 101 remains.
Applicant argues that Pu fail to disclose obtaining an entropy coding parameter based on the first parameter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Pu discloses the value of the palette entry index is explicitly signaled using truncated binary code followed by another syntax element in [0027]. Pu further discloses that an ouput bitstream will include syntax elements in [0072]. Pu discloses the decoder may parse data for a palette coded block. As a result, [008] discloses Truncated binary coding may be parameterized by an alphabet with total size of number n. Therefore, the entropy coding parameter of the binary coding is based on the syntax parameter. Rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites a decoding method, implemented by a decoder, comprising: receiving a bitstream including encoded data of an input signal and a first parameter; parsing the bitstream to obtain the first parameter; obtaining an entropy coding parameter based on the first parameter; and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal, based on the entropy coding parameter and the encoded data.
The limitation of receiving a bitstream including encoded data of an input signal and a first parameter, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (int. Ventures V. Cap One Financial), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of analyses (SAP v. InvestPic), creating an index, and using that index to retrieve data (Int. Ventures V. Erie Indemnity), or an algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary (Benson). The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those of an idea “of itself” or mathematical relationships found by the courts to be abstract idea. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation of parsing the bitstream to obtain the first parameter, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (int. Ventures V. Cap One Financial), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of analyses (SAP v. InvestPic), creating an index, and using that index to retrieve data (Int. Ventures V. Erie Indemnity), or an algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary (Benson). The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those of an idea “of itself” or mathematical relationships found by the courts to be abstract idea. Parsing from the bitstream is nothing more than reading and interpreting data. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation of obtaining an entropy coding parameter based on the first parameter, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (int. Ventures V. Cap One Financial), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of analyses (SAP v. InvestPic), creating an index, and using that index to retrieve data (Int. Ventures V. Erie Indemnity), or an algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary (Benson). The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those of an idea “of itself” or mathematical relationships found by the courts to be abstract idea. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal, based on the entropy coding parameter and the encoded data. The reconstructing is recited at a high level of generality and functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with out any computerized system. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions provide conventional implementation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-20 are dependent on their respective parent claims and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. The claims recite additional limitations that are merely extra-solution activity and do not meaningfully limit the claim. These limitations do not contain an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 A1 as being anticipated by US 20160094851-A1 -Pu et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Pu”).
Regarding claim 1, Pu discloses a decoding method (Fig. 3), implemented by a decoder (Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving a bitstream including encoded data of an input signal and a first parameter (Fig 3 shows receiving an encoded bitstream; [0074], wherein decoder may receive a bitstream generated by video encode);
parsing the bitstream to obtain the first parameter ([0074], may parse the bitstream to decode syntax elements from the bitstream; [0041],, wherein the syntax elements may be the quantized values, which are interpreted as the first parameter);
obtaining an entropy coding parameter based on the first parameter ([0080], wherein the entropy coding parameter is alphabet size); and
reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal, based on the entropy coding parameter and the encoded data ([0074], wherein reconstruct the pictures of the video data based at least in part on the syntax elements decoded from the bitstream).
Regarding claim 2, Pu discloses the decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the entropy coding parameter comprises at least one of the following: a size of an alphabet of an entropy coder ([0080]), wherein the size of the alphabet is: a size of an input alphabet of an entropy encoder ([0080]), or a size of an output alphabet of an entropy decoder; or a minimum symbol probability supported by the entropy coder; or a renormalization period of the entropy coder.
Regarding claim 6, Pu discloses the decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the first parameter comprises at least one of the following: a rate control parameter, a quantization parameter (qp), image resolution, video resolution, framerate, density of pixels in 3D object, or rate- distortion weighting factor ([0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Pu discloses the decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the decoding method further comprising: parsing the bitstream to obtain a flag ([0115]), wherein the flag is used to indicate whether the entropy coding parameter is carried in the bitstream directly ([0115-0116]).
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 10 (encoder performs the opposite the decoder)
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 20.amete
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) 3, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160094851-A1 -Pu et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Pu”), in view of US 20240015331 A1-PERINGASSERY KRISHNAN et al (Hereinafter referred to as “PER”).
Regarding claim 3, Pu discloses the decoding method according to claim 1 (See claim 1)
Pu fails to discloses wherein the first parameter is p, the entropy coding parameter comprises a size of an alphabet M, and M is a function of p.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Per discloses wherein the first parameter is p ([0085], QP), the entropy coding parameter comprises a size of an alphabet M ([0086], wherein context model parameter is the entropy coding parameter; [0120], wherein syntax elements can support elements that have an alphabet size of M element), and M is a function of p ( see equation 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Pu to disclose wherein the first parameter is p, the entropy coding parameter comprises a size of an alphabet M, and M is a function of p as taught by Per, to improve the accuracy of probability estimation ([0084], Per).
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 17.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160094851-A1 -Pu et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Pu”), in view of US 20240015331 A1-PERINGASSERY KRISHNAN et al (Hereinafter referred to as “PER”), in further view of US 2020026581 A1-Fuchs et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Fuchs”).
Regarding claim 4, Per discloses the decoding method according to claim 3 (see claim 3),
Pu and PER fail to disclose wherein the M meets one of the following: M =k*?*, wherein k is a natural number, a and C are constants; or, M =ax*p +b, wherein a and b are constants; or, M=p?.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fuchs discloses wherein the M meets one of the following: M =k*?*, wherein k is a natural number a and C are constants; or, M =ax*p +b, wherein a and b are constants; or, M=p^2 (see claim 4, wherein the parameter encoder is configured to encode the quantized diffuseness parameters in a raw coding mode using a binary code if an encoding alphabet comprises a size being a power of two, or to encode the quantized diffuseness parameters in the raw coding mode using a punctured code, if the encoding alphabet is different from a power of two, or to encode the quantized diffuseness parameters in a one value only mode using a first specific indication and a code word for the one value from the raw coding mode, or to encode the quantized diffuseness parameters in a two consecutive values only mode using a second specific indication, a code for the smaller of the two consecutive values and a bit for a difference between an or each actual value and the smaller of the two consecutive values)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Pu and Per to disclose wherein the M meets one of the following: M =k*?*, wherein k is a natural number, a and C are constants; or, M =ax*p +b, wherein a and b are constants; or, M=p^2 as taught by Fuchs, to provide an improved processing concept for coding by utilizing quantization parameters ([0030], Fuchs).
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160094851-A1 -Pu et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Pu”), in view of US 20130177070 S1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “seregin”)
Regarding claim 9, Pu discloses the decoding method according to claim 8 (see claim 8),
Pu fails to disclose wherein when the flag is equal to a first value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is carried in the bitstream, and in this case, the first parameter is the entropy coding parameter or the first parameter is a transformation result of the entropy coding parameter; or wherein when the flag is equal to a second value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is not carried in the bitstream, the entropy coding parameter is derived by the decoder.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seregin discloses wherein when the flag is equal to a first value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is carried in the bitstream ([0227]), and in this case, the first parameter is the entropy coding parameter or the first parameter is a transformation result of the entropy coding parameter ([0227]); or wherein when the flag is equal to a second value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is not carried in the bitstream, the entropy coding parameter is derived by the decoder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Pu to disclose when the flag is equal to a first value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is carried in the bitstream, and in this case, the first parameter is the entropy coding parameter or the first parameter is a transformation result of the entropy coding parameter; or wherein when the flag is equal to a second value specifies that the entropy coding parameter is not carried in the bitstream, the entropy coding parameter is derived by the decoder as taught by Seregin, to improve efficiency ([0043]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 14, 19 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.
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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights