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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese filed Application PCT/CN2022/106497).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 3 – 5 and 18 beyond formalities and 112(b) Rejections.
Applicant cancelled claim 20.
Applicant added new claim 21.
The pending claims are 1 – 5, 7 – 8, 17 – 19 and 21 [Page 13 lines 1 – 7].
Applicant contends the Drawings were amended, but not amended Drawings were filed to overcome Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 13 lines 8 – 11].
Applicant amended the Title and Abstract to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 13 lines 12 – 19].
Applicant amends the claims to address Examiner’s 1129b) Rejection [Page 14 line 20 – Page 15 line 8]. The Examiner reconsiders the Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section and thus the section is kept until Applicant agrees or disagrees with Examiner’s Analysis.
Applicant's arguments filed July 8th, 2026 [Page 13 line 20 – Page 14 line 29] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends the "conversion" is clear, however, the term encompasses encoding and decoding (in dependent claim 17) which are readily recognized as inverse processes to one of ordinary skill in the art (see at least Specification Paragraph 62). Thus, using inverse processes create inconsistencies as no closed definitions are provided in the Specification and further the essential steps to encode to generate the bitstream or entropy decode a bitstream to derive syntax to process the bitstream are omitted; thus, in view of MPEP2173.03 ["In addition, inconsistencies in the meaning of terms or phrases between claims may render the scope of the claims to be uncertain. Tvngo Ltd. (BVI) V. LG Elecs. Inc., 861 Fed. Appx. 453, 459-60, 2021 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("The issue is not breadth of the dependent claims but their use of the disputed phrase in a way that contradicts the independent claims."]. Regarding the second point of the Applicant regarding necessity of reciting essential encoding / decoding steps, the Examiner refers to the fact the processes are inverses and requires different uses of the context models and in view of MPEP2173.03, finds claim 1 Indefinite.
While the Applicant's points may possibly be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; thus, the Rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed July 8th, 2026 [Page 15 line 9 – Page 17 line 6] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 15 lines 9 – 14].
Second, the Applicant contends the references do not render obvious the bitstream containing initiation information [Page 15 lines 15 – 20]. Examiner notes no Specification support is given for the feature nor are any specific syntax elements are provided in the arguments.
Third, the Applicant recites syntax elements cited by Kim as rendering obvious disputed features claims [Page 15 line 21 – Page 16 line 3]. The Examiner notes syntax of Kim would be obvious to signal in the bitstream when considering Kim as a whole even though Paluri was cited for this feature (e.g. Paluri Paragraphs 75 and 84) including signaling the information of Kim Table 57 in the bitstream at the APS level. Further, the claim merely requires a determination based on initiation information which the references clearly meet (e.g. indications of context models to use and initialization information for context tables) as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “initiation information” in whatever intent in disputing all references such as the aps_params_type syntax element or the CABAC_APS enumerated value) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Fourth, the Applicant recites portions of Zhang and contends Zhang does not render obvious features claimed [Page 16 lines 4 – 24]. However, Zhang clearly teaches in Paragraph 59 signaling context model information and rendering obvious determinations claimed and Paragraphs 157 – 161 teachings slice and block based initializations. Examiner notes the claim does not prohibit using previously signaled information for the current block / slice as well as only mere determinations are required.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “initiation information” in whatever intent in disputing all references such as the aps_params_type syntax element or the CABAC_APS enumerated value) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Fifth, the Applicant contends Paluri does not render obvious features claimed [Page 16 lines 25 – 29]. However, Paluri render obvious features claimed and was relied upon for bitstream teachings as well and levels signaling information.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Sixth, the Applicant cancels claim 20 to overcome Examiner’s 102 Rejection and present claim 21 alleging claim 21 is allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 16 line 30 – Page 17 line 6].
While the Applicant’s points may possibly be understood, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; thus, the Rejection has been maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on February 23rd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 9 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, III, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 23rd, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed April 8th, 2026). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “No” and “Yes” [Figures 4 and 5].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 4 and 5 [See Specification Pages 9 – 11 and Sections 2.2 and 2.3] should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 2, there is no subtraction sign on the input from the prediction unit into reference character “207” [Specification Paragraph 46].
In Figure 3, there are not two arrows as input to reference character 306 (the arrow between reference characters 305 and 306 is pointing in the opposite direction).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cause the processor to: …” in claim 18.
The Examiner notes the claimed “non-transitory memory” and “processor” are being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art; thus, the terms do NOT invoke Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 8, 18 – 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "conversion" which has Indefinite metes and bounds as processes (e.g. encoding) and their inverse (e.g. decoding) are encompassed thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as the steps of the claim have no distinction between such processes. Further, the claim raises issues regarding Essential Steps as the claim omits the encoder deriving the partition information and the decoder receiving the tile partition information.
Regarding claims 18 – 19 and 21, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 18), program (claim 19), and method of storing a bitstream (claim 21) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 8, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected. While claim 17 is not Rejected, the inclusion of only one of the respective dependent claims (not both simultaneously) would overcome the Rejection of claim 1 and the recitation of the other would result in improper dependency issues (e.g. a decoder depending on an encoder as the inverse process depending on the forward process or vice versa).
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.
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.
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) 1 – 5, 7 – 8, 17 – 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (US PG PUB 2015/0071356 A1 referred to as “Kim” throughout), and further in view of Paluri, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0217405 A1 referred to as “Paluri” throughout) and Zhang, et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0158837 A1 referred to as “Zhang” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s January 17th, 2025 IDS].
Regarding claim 1, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
a processor [Paluri Figures 2, 3, and 17 – 18 as well as Paragraphs 66 – 67 and 82 – 84 (processor based implementations of the encoder / decoder in Figures 2 and 3) and 297 – 300 (processor and CRM storing programs / instructions for execution)] and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor [Paluri Figures 2, 3, and 17 – 18 as well as Paragraphs 66 – 67 and 82 – 84 (processor based implementations of the encoder / decoder in Figures 2 and 3) and 297 – 300 (processor and CRM storing programs / instructions for execution)], cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video [Paluri Figures 2 and 3 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 75 and 84 (entropy coding / decoding using CABAC in the conversion of the bitstream / video)], at least one context model associated with the current video block based on initiation information of the at least one context model, the initiation information of the at least one context model being included in the bitstream [Kim Paragraphs 388 (and code segment in Table 27) and 484 – 485 (see cabac_init_idc and aps_cabac_init_idc syntax elements and code segment in Table 57 initializing the context model to use) combinable with Zhang Paragraphs 59 and 157 – 161 (initialization of context models using indicators / flags to combine with Kim)]; and
perform the conversion based on the at least one context model [Paluri Figures 2 and 3 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 75 and 84 (entropy coding / decoding using CABAC in the conversion of the bitstream / video)].
The motivation to combine Paluri with Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding [Paluri Paragraphs 1 – 4] in order to improve efficiency using coding tool and improve image quality [Paluri Paragraphs 4 – 5 where the Examiner also observes that KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Zhang with Paluri and Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding including entropy coding / decoding [Zhang Paragraphs 1 – 5] in order to improve memory usage of storing the context table / model and signaling of the context model / table [Zhang Paragraphs 4 and 31 – 33 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
determining, based on initiation information of at least one context model [See next limitation for citations], the at least one context model associated with a current video block of the video [Kim Paragraphs 388 (and code segment in Table 27) and 484 – 485 (see cabac_init_idc and aps_cabac_init_idc syntax elements and code segment in Table 57 initializing the context model to use) combinable with Zhang Paragraphs 59 and 157 – 161 (initialization of context models using indicators / flags to combine with Kim)], the initiation information of the at least one context model being included in the bitstream [Paluri Figures 2 and 3 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 75 and 84 (entropy coding / decoding using CABAC in the conversion of the bitstream / video to combine with the signaling of Kim and Zhang citations in the previous limitation)];
generating the bitstream based on the at least one context model [Paluri Figures 2 and 3 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 75 and 84 (entropy coding / decoding using CABAC in the conversion of the bitstream / video where the output of the entropy encoder would be an obvious variant of the claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art using the context model selection of Kim and Zhang for the “at least one context model associated …” limitation)]; and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium [Paluri Figures 2, 3, and 17 – 18 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 66 – 67, 75, and 82 – 84 (processor based implementations of the encoder / decoder in Figures 2 and 3) and 297 – 300 (processor and CRM storing programs / instructions for execution and bitstreams such as in Paragraphs 75 and 84 at least)].
See claim 18 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang as claim 18 is the apparatus performed by the similarly claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the initiation information of the at least one context model comprises at least one of: a probability parameter, an updating speed of the probability parameter, an indicator of an initialized value of the probability parameter, or a further parameter associated with the at least one context model [Kim Tables 27 or 57 as well as Paragraphs 388 and 480 – 485 (initialization of context tables based on an index value / associated parameter) or Zhang Paragraphs 68 – 73 (initialization of tables in view of table 11 with probability states / index for states to initialize the context models / tables), 145 (updating speed), and 157 – 161 (initialization with probability parameters / states))], and/or
wherein the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in a first video unit in the bitstream, wherein the first video unit comprises at least one of: a sequence parameter set (SPS), an adaptation parameter set (APS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, a slice header, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU line, a prefix APS, or a suffix APS [Kim Table 27 (initialization is in a slice header) or Table 57 (context initialization based on APS use and filtering activated) as well as Paragraphs 479 – 485 (signaling the use of APS in a slice header which includes context model information) or alternatively Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein a first syntax element is included in the bitstream, the first syntax element indicating a type of information included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” to identify the APS information for the video unit or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)], or
wherein the first syntax element further indicates whether the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)], or
wherein if the first syntax element indicates the initiation information of the at least one context model, the initiation information is included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization so the initialization is within the same video unit being processed)], or
wherein at least one second syntax element indicating whether the first syntax element is included in the first video unit is included in at least one second video unit in the bitstream [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the at least one second syntax element comprises a single second syntax element in a single second video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)], or
wherein the first video unit comprises the picture parameter set (PPS), and the single second video unit comprises one of: the sequence parameter set (SPS), or a video parameter set (VPS) [Paluri Figures 8 – 10 (PPS and SPS levels in relation to APS to signal information in PPS / SPS) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 145 and 197 – 200 (common information across video units using SPS / PPS / APS signaling)], or
wherein the single second syntax element indicates whether a first coding tool is enabled, the initiation information of the at least one context model being included in the first video unit by the coding tool, or wherein the single second syntax element indicates whether the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization) where Paluri Figures 8 – 10 (PPS and SPS levels in relation to APS to signal information in PPS / SPS) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 145 and 197 – 200 (common information across video units using SPS / PPS / APS signaling) renders obvious the first / second video units claimed], or
wherein the at least one second syntax element comprises a plurality of second syntax elements in a plurality of second video units, the plurality of second video units being different video units [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag and “aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag”)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization) where Paluri Figures 8 – 10 (PPS and SPS levels in relation to APS to signal information in PPS / SPS) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 145 and 197 – 200 (common information across video units using SPS / PPS / APS signaling) renders obvious the first / second video units claimed], or
wherein one of the plurality of second syntax elements indicates whether a second coding tool is enabled, the initiation information of the at least one context model being included in the first video unit by the second coding tool, and another one of the plurality of second syntax elements indicates whether the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” or “aps_cabac_use_flag” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag and “aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag”)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization) where Paluri Figures 8 – 10 (PPS and SPS levels in relation to APS to signal information in PPS / SPS) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 145 and 197 – 200 (common information across video units using SPS / PPS / APS signaling) renders obvious the first / second video units claimed], or
wherein a combination of the plurality of second syntax elements indicates whether the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the first video unit [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” or “aps_cabac_init_idc” to identify the APS information for the video unit or CABAC initialization or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding as an obvious variant of the second syntax element claimed (e.g. aps_adaptive_loop_filter_flag and “aps_sample_adaptive_offset_flag”)) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization) where Paluri Figures 8 – 10 (PPS and SPS levels in relation to APS to signal information in PPS / SPS) as well as Paragraphs 143 – 145 and 197 – 200 (common information across video units using SPS / PPS / APS signaling) renders obvious the first / second video units claimed].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaches signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the first video unit comprises an extension part of the adaptation parameter set (APS) [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” to identify the APS information for the video unit or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or alternatively Paluri Tables 7, 8, 16, and 23 as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (signaling extensions to use APS)], or
wherein a first syntax element indicates whether the extension part of the APS exists is included in the bitstream [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” to identify the APS information for the video unit or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) or alternatively Paluri Tables 7, 8, 16, and 23 as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (signaling extensions to use APS in the bitstream)], or
wherein if the first syntax element indicates that the extension part exists, the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the extension part [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least “aps_id” to identify the APS information for the video unit or the ALF or SAO filter identification in the APS to signal the use of CABAC coding) as well as Paragraphs 478 – 485 (signal APS to use which contains signaling on context model to use) in combination Paluri Tables 7, 8, 16, and 23 as well as Paragraphs 167 – 172 (signaling extensions to use APS in the bitstream) and 249 – 254 (APD ID numbers may be signaled as well for which APS data set to use with Kim’s CABAC initialization signaling in the APS)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools be based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaching signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
initializing at least one context of the at least one context model based on the initiation information [Kim Paragraphs 388 (and code segment in Table 27) and 484 – 485 (see cabac_init_idc and aps_cabac_init_idc syntax elements and code segment in Table 57 initializing the context model to use) combinable with Zhang Paragraphs 59 and 157 – 161 (initialization of context models using indicators / flags to combine with Kim)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools be based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaching signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
determining whether to include the initiation information of the at least one context model in the bitstream based on at least one syntax element in the bitstream [Kim Tables 27 and 57 (see at least the flags regarding SAO or ALF usage in the APS where cabac_init indicators / flags )],
wherein the at least one syntax element is in at least one video unit, the at least one video unit comprising at least one of: a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, or slice header, wherein the at least one syntax element indicates whether the at least one video unit comprises the initiation information of the at least one context model [Kim Table 27 (initialization is in a slice header) or Table 57 (context initialization based on APS use and filtering activated) as well as Paragraphs 479 – 485 (signaling the use of APS in a slice header which includes context model information) or alternatively Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)], and/or
wherein the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in a high level syntax module, the high-level syntax module comprising at least one of: a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, or slice header, wherein the at least one syntax element in at least one of a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS) or a picture parameter set (PPS) indicates whether the initiation information of the at least one context model is included in the high-level syntax module [Kim Table 27 (initialization is in a slice header) or Table 57 (context initialization based on APS use and filtering activated) as well as Paragraphs 479 – 485 (signaling the use of APS in a slice header which includes context model information) or alternatively Zhang Table 11 Paragraphs 66 – 70 (slice header signaling of CABAC initialization)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches signaling CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) usage in APS (adaptive parameter sets) and have coding tools be based on the usage of CABAC. Paluri teaching signaling coding tool usage in the APS with relations to CABAC / context models used or selected. Zhang teaches details of initializing context models and other context initialization considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kim to use syntax elements and organizations of code in the APS as taught by Paluri and the content table model considerations as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the conversion includes encoding the content video block into the bitstream, and/or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream [Paluri Figures 2 and 3 (encoder and decoder converting between video and bitstream and see at least reference characters 240 and 310) as well as Paragraphs 75 and 84 (entropy coding / decoding using CABAC in the conversion of the bitstream / video)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Kim, Paluri, and Zhang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deshpande (US PG PUB 2015/0304671 A1 referred to as “Deshpande” throughout) teaches similar features to those of Kim.
Reference(s) which may raise ODP Rejection based on amendments made to the claims: Zhang, et al. (US PG PUB 2018/0098072 A1 referred to as “Zhang” throughout).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights