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 1-21 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, 5, 9-12, 16, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (“Jeon”) [U.S 2006/0158355 A1] in view of Choi et al. (“Choi”) [US 11,765,357 B2]
Regarding claim 1, Jeon meets the claim limitations as follows:
A computer-implemented method for coding audiovisual content, the method comprising:
identifying a first symbol value (i.e. ‘receives the symbol value of the syntax element’, e.g., mb_type) [Figs. 2-11; para. 0044: Table 1: ‘Symbol value (symbol) of mb_type of B slice’] included in a block of coefficients (i.e. ‘B slice’);
generating a context value for the first symbol value (i.e. ‘a context template’) [Figs. 3, 7; para. 0048-0050: ‘a context template of CABAC includes a symbol S0 of an adjacent block 340 located on the left side of a current block 330 having a symbol to be encoded’] based on a first set of symbol values included in the block of coefficients that reside proximate to (i.e. ‘a symbol S0 of an adjacent block 340’) a first symbol position associated with the first symbol value;
mapping the context value (i.e. ‘a context template’) to a first coding parameter (i.e. ‘mb_type’) using a first mapping table [Fig. 2, 5; para. 0043-0051: ‘The syntax element indicates data of a compressed bitstream and includes parameters’, e.g., ‘mb_type’];
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
selecting a first bypass coder from a plurality of bypass coders based on the first symbol value; and
executing the first bypass coder on the first symbol value using the first coding parameter to generate a coded version of the first symbol value.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
selecting a first bypass coder [Figs. 10, 12-16: switching from Regular coding engine to Bypass coding engine; col. 28: ‘the binarized bins of the syntax element may input to a regular coding engine or bypass coding engine’] from a plurality of bypass coders [Fig. 10; col. 9, ll. 50-60; col. 28, 59: ‘various encoding methods’; ‘the syntax element may be coded as a bypass bin’] based on the first symbol value (i.e. the syntax element); and
executing the first bypass coder [Figs. 10, 12-16; col. 28: ‘when the binarized bins of the syntax element are input to the bypass coding engine, they may be coded as follows’] on the first symbol value using the first coding parameter to generate a coded version of the first symbol value.
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 5, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein mapping the context value to the first coding parameter comprises: determining a first range of values included in the mapping table; and determining that the first range of values corresponds to the first coding parameter.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein mapping the context value to the first coding parameter comprises: determining a first range of values (i.e. Range of codeNum 0) included in the mapping table [Table 9, 10; col. 51, 52]; and determining that the first range of values corresponds to the first coding parameter (i.e. ‘Bit string’) [Table 9, 10; col. 51, 52: ‘range updated through coding of a previous bin’].
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 9, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a unary prefix length associated with the first symbol value, wherein the first bypass coder is selected based further on the unary prefix length.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising determining a unary prefix length associated with the first symbol value, wherein the first bypass coder is selected based further on the unary prefix length [col. 50, ll. 55-60: Table 7, ‘a bin string derived through unary binarization for the prefixVal’ (i.e. prefixValue is mapped to unary length)].
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 10, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first bypass coder implements Rice-Golomb coding.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first bypass coder implements Rice-Golomb coding [col. 28, ll. 10-15, col. 49, ll. 55-60].
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 11, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first bypass coder implements Exponential-Golomb coding.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first bypass coder implements Exponential-Golomb coding [col. 28, ll. 10-15, col. 49, ll. 55-60].
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 9 in 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 form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claims 2, 8, 13 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Choi in further view of Karczewicz et al. (“Karczewicz_873”) [US 2011/0248873 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises: generating a first combined value based on the first set of symbol values; generating a second combined value based on a second set of symbol values, wherein the second set of symbol values includes the first set of symbol values as well as a third set of symbol values; and generating a weighted sum of the first combined value and the second combined value.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises: generating a first combined value based on the first set of symbol values (e.g. ‘the syntax elements coded after the abs_level_gtx_flag[n][2] for Coeff0’) [Figs. 13-16; col. 59]; generating a second combined value based on a second set of symbol values e.g. ‘the syntax elements coded after the abs_level_gtx_flag[n][2] for Coeff0’) [Figs. 13-16; col. 59], wherein the second set of symbol values includes the first set of symbol values as well as a third set of symbol values e.g. ‘including the abs_level_gtx_flag[n][3] for Coeff0’) [Figs. 13-16; col. 59]; and
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises: generating a first combined value …; generating a second combined value …, wherein the second set of symbol values includes the first set of symbol values as well as a third set of symbol values; and generating a weighted sum of the first combined value and the second combined value.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_873 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises: generating a first combined value …; generating a second combined value …, wherein the second set of symbol values includes the first set of symbol values as well as a third set of symbol values; and generating a weighted sum of the first combined value and the second combined value [para. 0111: ‘Specifically, when forming a context for coding the first symbol combination in a block, …, the run of the previously coded symbol combination is set as an average of the runs of the first coded symbol combination in a number of previously coded blocks’].
Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_873 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 Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_873 as motivation to calculate an average of the runs of the first coded symbol combination for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczwicz_873: para. 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 8, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a scan index associated with the first symbol value.
However in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table (i.e.’ a coefficient scanning order’ or ‘DiagScanOrder’ ) [Fig. 11, 17; col. 9, ll. 40-60: ‘rearrange block type quantized transform coefficients .. based on a coefficient scanning order’; col. 29: Table1] associated with the first symbol value (e.g. last_sig_coeff_x_prefix or last_sig_coeff_y_prefix) [col. 29, 30, 47: ‘remAbsLevel of the corresponding scanning position’].
Jeon and Choi 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 Jeon and Choi as motivation to switch context-coding to bypass coding for ‘improving an encoding rate’ [Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Choi does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a scan index associated with the first symbol value.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_873 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables [Fig. 8: ‘Maintain multi-level VLC tables’ 802; para. 0006; 0038, 0040: ‘a plurality of VLC tables’; ‘the mapping of codewords to symbol combinations maintained in the VLC tables’] based on a scan index associated with the first symbol value.
Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_873 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 Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_873 as motivation to include a plurality of mapping tables in accordance with the standards, e.g., MPEG or H.264 for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczwicz_873: para. 0003, 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 8 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 8.
Claims 3, 4, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Choi in further view of Ramirez et al. (“Ramirez”) [US 2008/0031315 A1]
Regarding claim 3, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises computing an absolute sum of the first set of symbol values or computing an exponentially weighted average of the first set of symbol values.
However in the same field of endeavor Ramirez discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises computing an absolute sum of the first set of symbol values [para. 0055-0056: ‘a weighted or unweighted average of the component symbols’; para. 0072: ‘calculating the sum of the absolute values of the differences between adjacent symbols in the context’] or computing an exponentially weighted average of the first set of symbol values [para. 0055-0056: ‘a weighted or unweighted average of the component symbols’].
Jeon, Choi and Ramirez 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 Jeon, Choi and Ramirez as motivation to calculate the sum of the absolute values of the differences between symbols for denoising to reduce error symbols [Ramirez: para. 0001].
Regarding claim 4, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises computing a moving average of the first set of symbol values, wherein the first set of symbol values includes all previously coded symbol values.
However in the same field of endeavor Ramirez discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the context value for the first symbol value comprises computing a moving average of the first set of symbol values [para. 0055-0056: ‘a weighted or unweighted average of the component symbols’; para. 0072: ‘calculating the sum of the absolute values of the differences between adjacent symbols in the context’], wherein the first set of symbol values includes all previously coded symbol values.
Jeon, Choi and Ramirez 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 Jeon, Choi and Ramirez as motivation to calculate the sum of the absolute values of the differences between symbols for denoising to reduce error symbols [Ramirez: para. 0001].
Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Claims 6, 7 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Choi in further view of Karczewicz et al. (“Karczewicz_537”) [US 2015/0016537 A1] in further view of Karczewicz et al. (“Karczewicz_873”) [US 2011/0248873 A1]
Regarding claim 6, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a prediction mode used to generate the block of coefficients.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_537 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table (i.e. ‘select the context model used to encode theses symbols’) [para. 0168] from a plurality of mapping tables based on a prediction mode [para. 0168: ‘based on, for example, an intra-prediction direction for intra-prediction modes’] used to generate the block of coefficients.
Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_537 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 Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_537 as motivation to select the context model based on a prediction mode in accordance with the standards, e.g., MPEG or H.264 for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczewicz_537: para. 0003, 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Karczewicz_537 does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a transform type used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_873 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables [Fig. 8: ‘Maintain multi-level VLC tables’ 802; para. 0006; 0038, 0040: ‘a plurality of VLC tables’; ‘the mapping of codewords to symbol combinations maintained in the VLC tables’] based on a transform type used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients [para. 0111: ‘Specifically, when forming a context for coding the first symbol combination in a block, …, the run of the previously coded symbol combination is set as an average of the runs of the first coded symbol combination in a number of previously coded blocks’].
Jeon, Choi, Karczewicz_537 and Karczewicz_873 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 Jeon, Choi, Karczewicz_537 and Karczewicz_873 as motivation to include a plurality of mapping tables in accordance with the standards, e.g., MPEG or H.264 for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczwicz_873: para. 0003, 0006; Karczewicz_537: para. 0003, 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 7, Jeon meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Jeon does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a transform type used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_537 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table (i.e. ‘select the context model used to encode theses symbols’) [para. 0168] from a plurality of mapping tables based on a transform type [para. 0168: ‘based on, for example, … and/or transform type’] used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients.
Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_537 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 Jeon, Choi and Karczewicz_537 as motivation to select the context model based on transform type in accordance with the standards, e.g., MPEG or H.264 for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczewicz_537: para. 0003, 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Karczewicz_537 does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables based on a transform type used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients.
However in the same field of endeavor Karczewicz_873 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising selecting the first mapping table from a plurality of mapping tables [Fig. 8: ‘Maintain multi-level VLC tables’ 802; para. 0006; 0038, 0040: ‘a plurality of VLC tables’; ‘the mapping of codewords to symbol combinations maintained in the VLC tables’] based on a transform type used to generate the block of coefficients or a quantization parameter used to generate the block of coefficients [para. 0111: ‘Specifically, when forming a context for coding the first symbol combination in a block, …, the run of the previously coded symbol combination is set as an average of the runs of the first coded symbol combination in a number of previously coded blocks’].
Jeon, Choi, Karczewicz_537 and Karczewicz_873 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 Jeon, Choi, Karczewicz_537 and Karczewicz_873 as motivation to include a plurality of mapping tables in accordance with the standards, e.g., MPEG or H.264 for coding efficiency and system performance [Karczwicz_873: para. 0003, 0006; Karczewicz_537: para. 0003, 0006; Choi: col. 2, ll. 45-55; col. 28, ll. 50-60].
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions” [Jeon: para. 0113] and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 15 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
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
Prosecution Insights