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
Claims 1-20 filed on 01/09/2025 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (“Choi”) [U.S Patent No. 11,765,357 B2] in view of Marpe et al. (“Marpe”) [US 2005/0038837 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
A computer-implemented method for coding audiovisual content, the method comprising:
identifying a first coefficient (i.e. ‘symbolVal’) [Fig. 23: ‘S320’; col. 50: Equation 7 or 8] included in a block of coefficients; identifying a first portion (i.e. ‘suffixVal’) [col. 50: Equation 8] of the first coefficient based on a threshold value (i.e. ‘cRiceParam’) [col. 50; Eq. 8] ; identifying a second portion (i.e. ‘prefixVal’) [col. 50: Equation 7] of the first coefficient based on the threshold value, wherein the first portion of the first coefficient represents a lower value range (i.e. suffix of symbolVal <prefix) than the second portion of the first coefficient;
performing one or more entropy coding operations (e.g. exponential Golomb, … (CAVLC), … (CABAC)) [Fig. 10, 12: ‘Context-coded’; col. 9, ll. 40-60] on the first portion of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the first portion of the first coefficient; and
performing one or more bypass coding operations (i.e. ‘‘unary binarization’) [Fig. 10, 12: ‘Context-coded’; col. 9, ll. 40-60; col. 28, 29: ‘when the input signal is already a binary value … may be bypassed; [col. 50, ll. 25-30: ‘unary binarization for the prefixVal’] on the second portion of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
performing one or more entropy coding operations on the first portion (i.e. ‘suffixVal’) of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the first portion of the first coefficient; and
performing one or more bypass coding operations on the second portion (i.e. ‘prefixVal’) of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient.
However in the same field of endeavor Marpe discloses the deficient claim as follows:
performing one or more entropy coding operations on the first portion (i.e. ‘suffixVal’) [Fig. 4: kth order exponential Golomb binarization is applied to primary suffix; para. 0045-0047: ‘codeword of … a transform coefficient level’] of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the first portion of the first coefficient; and
performing one or more bypass coding operations on the second portion (i.e. ‘prefixVal’) [Fig. 4: truncated unary binarization is applied to primary suffix] of the first coefficient to generate a coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient.
Choi and Marpe are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi and Marpe as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding so as to reduce the significantly model costs [Marpe: para. 0047].
Regarding claim 4, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the threshold value(i.e. ‘cRiceParam’) [col. 50; Eq. 8] based on at least one of a size attribute associated with the block of coefficients [col. 53, ll. 25-35: ‘TbWidth’; ‘TbHeight’], a dimension attribute associated with the block of coefficients, a transform type [col. 53, ll. 25-30: ‘luma position (x0, y0)’] associated with the block of coefficients, or a quantization parameter [col. 55: ‘TransformRange’] associated with the block of coefficients.
Regarding claim 6, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the threshold value based on a color plane [col. 53, ll. 25-30; col. 55: ‘inputting the color component cIdx and luma position (x0, y0)’] associated with the block of coefficients, wherein the color plane comprises a luma color plane or a chroma color plane.
Regarding claim 7, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the first coefficient (i.e. ‘suffixVal’) [col. 50: Equation 8] includes base range values and low range values, and the second portion of the first coefficient (i.e. ‘prefixVal’) [col. 50: Equation 7] includes remaining high range values.
Regarding claim 9, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient (i.e. bypass coding operations) [See rejection of claim 1 limitations “performing one or more bypass coding operations”] comprises: determining a unary prefix length [col. 50, ll. 25-30: ‘unary binarization for the prefixVal] associated with the second portion of the first coefficient; and encoding the second portion of the first coefficient [Fig. 10, 12; See rejection of claim 1 limitations “performing one or more bypass coding operations”] based on the unary prefix length to generate the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
determining a unary prefix length associated with the second portion of the first coefficient;
However in the same field of endeavor Marpe discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determining a unary prefix length associated with the second portion (i.e. ‘prefixVal’) [Fig. 4: truncated unary binarization is applied to primary suffix] of the first coefficient;
Choi and Marpe are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi and Marpe as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding so as to reduce the significantly model costs [Marpe: para. 0047].
Regarding claim 10, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating the block of coefficients by [Fig. 2]: transforming [Fig. 2: ‘transformer 232’] a first block of pixel or sample values to generate one or more coefficients; and quantizing [Fig. 2: ‘quantizer 233’] the one or more coefficients to generate the first block of coefficients.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Choi: col. 75, ll. 30-40] and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 9 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 11 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 11.
Claims 2-3 and 12-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Marpe in further view of Cheon et al. (“Cheon”) [US 2011/0310973 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a first region [Fig. 11: a 4x4 block; col. 6, ll. 15-30: ‘The unit may include at least one of a specific region of the picture’; ‘One unit may include one luma block and two chroma’] within the block of coefficients based on at least one attribute (e.g. luma or chroma) of the block of coefficients;
determining that the first coefficient resides in the first region based on a scan index (i.e. a scan order) [Fig. 11; col. 45, ll. 55-67: ‘in a scanning order within the transform block’; col. 63, ll. 1-7: ‘the last coefficient in a scan order’] associated with the first coefficient; and in response to determining that the first coefficient (i.e. ‘symbolVal’) [Fig. 11, 23: ‘S320’; col. 50: Equation 7 or 8] resides in the first region, generating the threshold value (i.e. ‘symbolVal’) [Fig. 23: ‘S320’; col. 50: Equation 7 or 8. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a threshold value’].
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
identifying a first region within the block of coefficients based on at least one attribute of the block of coefficients; determining that the first coefficient resides in the first region based on a scan index associated with the first coefficient; and in response to determining that the first coefficient resides in the first region, generating the threshold value.
However in the same field of endeavor Cheon discloses the deficient claim as follows:
identifying a first region within the block of coefficients based on at least one attribute (e.g., lowest frequency or highest frequency) of the block of coefficients [Fig. 8, 9, 29; para. 0336, 0341: ‘determine the coefficient block 2920’]; determining that the first coefficient resides in the first region based on a scan index [Fig. 8, 9, 29; para. 0336, 0341: ‘to be scanned by extracting only the vertical index Y’; ‘changing an order of scanning 8x8 transformation coefficients based on frequency characteristics of each frequency band’] associated with the first coefficient; and in response to determining that the first coefficient resides in the first region, generating the threshold value.
Choi, Marpe and Cheon are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Cheon as motivation to include the selective frequency domain transform for effectively encoding/decoding the high resolution or high quality video content [Cheon: para. 0005-0010].
Regarding claim 3, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein a scan index (i.e. a scan order) [Fig. 11; col. 45, ll. 55-67: ‘in a scanning order within the transform block’; col. 63, ll. 1-7: ‘the last coefficient in a scan order’] indicates whether the first coefficient resides in a low frequency region of the block of coefficients [Fig. 11: low-frequency region] or a default region of the block of coefficients [Fig. 11: a 4x4 block; col. 6, ll. 15-30: ‘The unit may include at least one of a specific region of the picture’; ‘One unit may include one luma block and two chroma’], and further comprising determining the threshold value (i.e. ‘symbolVal’) [Fig. 23: ‘S320’; col. 50: Equation 7 or 8. See rejection of claim 1 limitation “a threshold value’] based on the scan index.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein a scan index indicates whether the first coefficient resides in a low frequency region of the block of coefficients or a default region of the block of coefficients, and further comprising determining the threshold value based on the scan index.
However in the same field of endeavor Cheon discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein a scan index [Fig. 8, 9, 29; para. 0336, 0341: ‘to be scanned by extracting only the vertical index Y’; ‘changing an order of scanning 8x8 transformation coefficients based on frequency characteristics of each frequency band’] indicates whether the first coefficient resides in a low frequency region (e.g., lowest frequency or highest frequency) [Fig. 8, 9, 29; para. 0336, 0341: ‘determine the coefficient block 2920’] of the block of coefficients or a default region of the block of coefficients, and further comprising determining the threshold value based on the scan index.
Choi, Marpe and Cheon are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Cheon as motivation to include the selective frequency domain transform for effectively encoding/decoding the high resolution or high quality video content [Cheon: para. 0005-0010].
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Claims 5, 15, 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Marpe in further view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) [US 2017/0064336 A1]
Regarding claim 5, Choi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the threshold value based on a prediction mode used to generate the block of coefficients, wherein the prediction mode comprises either an intra prediction mode or an inter prediction mode.
However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising determining the threshold value (i.e. ‘determining Rice parameters … if an intra prediction mode used’ [para. 0151, 0154] based on a prediction mode used to generate the block of coefficients, wherein the prediction mode comprises either an intra prediction mode or an inter prediction mode.
Choi, Marpe and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Zhang as motivation to determine a Rice parameter K for the syntax element [Zhang: para. 0006].
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Choi meets the claim limitations as follows:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more bypass coding operations comprise one or more truncated Rice coding operations (i.e. ‘TR’) [col. 49, ll. 55-60].
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the one or more bypass coding operations comprise one or more truncated Rice coding operations.
However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more bypass coding operations (i.e. ‘The prefix is binarized with 0-th order truncated Rice (TR)’) [para. 0099] comprise one or more truncated Rice coding operations.
Choi, Marpe and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Zhang as motivation to determine a Rice parameter K for the syntax element [Zhang: para. 0006].
Regarding claim 19, Choi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more bypass coding operations comprise one or more Golomb-Rice coding operations or one or more Exponential-Golomb coding operations.
However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more bypass coding operations comprise one or more Golomb-Rice coding operations or one or more Exponential-Golomb coding operations [para. 0119: ‘Otherwise, a prefix (with three ‘1’s) and a suffix using a K-th order Exp-Golomb code is used for bypass coding’] comprise one or more truncated Rice coding operations.
Choi, Marpe and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Zhang as motivation to determine a Rice parameter K for the syntax element [Zhang: para. 0006].
Claims 8 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Marpe in further view of Karczewicz et al. (“Karczewicz”) [US 2020/0077117 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Choi meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient is generated by: generating a first coding parameter for the second portion of the first coefficient based on a second coefficient included in the block of coefficients; selecting a first bypass coder from a plurality of bypass coders based on the first coding parameter; and executing the first bypass coder on the second portion of the first coefficient using the first coding parameter to generate the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient is generated by (i.e. bypass coding operations) [See rejection of claim 1 limitations “performing one or more bypass coding operations”]:
generating a first coding parameter (e.g., [b0 b1]) for the second portion of the first coefficient [Fig. 6: ‘bypass coded Golomb-Rice code; para. 0125, 0145-0149] based on a second coefficient [Fig. 6: ‘the Exponential-Golomb code; para.0014, 0125, 0145-0149] included in the block of coefficients; selecting a first bypass coder from a plurality of bypass coders based on the first coding parameter; and executing the first bypass coder on the second portion of the first coefficient using the first coding parameter to generate the coded version of the second portion of the first coefficient [Fig. 6: ‘the Exponential-Golomb code; para. 0014, 0125, 0145-0149].
Choi, Marpe and Karczewicz are combinable because they are from the same field of video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Choi, Marpe and Karczewicz as motivation to derive the threshold to switch between bypass coded Golomb-Rice code and the Exponential-Golomb code for effectively encoding/decoding the high resolution or high quality video content [Karczewicz: para. 0010-0014].
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 8 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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 PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 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 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488