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).
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Claims 6 and 9 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, III, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking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.
The pending claims are 1 – 5, 7 – 8, and 17 – 20.
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 (this Office Action). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract contains legalese language (the third sentence is a copy of claim 1) instead of a series of brief sentences in narrative format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, and 18 – 20 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 – 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 18), program (claim 19), and product by process (claim 20) 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).
Regarding claim 18, the recited "apparatus for video processing" has Indefinite metes and bounds as the preamble is ordinarily not afforded patentable weight and additionally the claim is Indefinite if the recitation is intended as a functional recitation of the claimed "apparatus".
Regarding claim 3, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as to which of the four “wherein” limitations the “or” feature applies to or how many of the limitations are optional.
Regarding claim 4, the dependent claim does not cure the deficiency of claim 3 from which it depends and thus is similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as to which of the five “wherein” limitations the “or” feature applies to or how many of the limitations are optional.
Regarding claim 5, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as to which of the three “wherein” limitations the “or” feature applies to or how many of the limitations are optional.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coding tool" in lines 8 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paluri, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0217405 A1 referred to as “Paluri” throughout).
Regarding claim 20, Paluri teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing [Paluri Figures 14, 16, and 18 (apparatus to receive / transmit bitstreams computed for encoding / decoding) as well as Paragraphs 207, 270, and 280 (encoder / decoder generating bitstream), 296 – 298 (storage media to contain the bitstreams and programs for encoding / decoding), and 302 – 308 (servers and additional embodiments storing bitstreams from encoding / decoding) where there is no structural differences in the bitstream see MPEP2113 I], wherein the method comprises: [The method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product) generated / created is given weight (see MPEP2113 I and II)].
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, and 17 – 20 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 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 20, while the method steps are not afforded patentable weight (product by process claim), in the sole interest to expedite prosecution the claim when afforded patentable weight is similarly rejected to claim 1 as the method claimed and in view of the Paluri citations in the 102 Rejection (see above) as the non-transitory medium storing a program to perform a method to generate a bitstream.
Regarding claim 18, 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
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 2, 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 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 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 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)],
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)],
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)], and/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 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 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)],
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)],
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],
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],
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 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], and/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 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 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)],
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)], and/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).
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