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 .
Claim Interpretation
The method steps of claim 20 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is merely serving as support for data created by the method. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has included citations below.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which cause a processor to generate a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rossato et al. (U.S. 2021/0211752), hereinafter Rossato. Rossato was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 1/22/25.
Regarding claim 20, Rossato discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing at least one bitstream (Rossato [0454] and [0934]) of visual data which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for visual data processing, wherein the method comprises: determining a residual representation of the visual data at least based on a first probability distribution parameter of the visual data and at least one gain parameter, the residual representation representing a residual value compared to a second probability distribution representation of the visual data, the at least one gain parameter adjusting a value range of the residual representation; and generating the at least one bitstream based on the residual representation (see Claim Interpretation section above and claim 1 citations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossato in view of Gu et al. (U.S. 2020/0160546), hereinafter Gu.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, Rossato discloses an apparatus for visual data processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to (Rossato [0057], [0931] and [0935]):
determine, for a conversion between at least one bitstream of visual data and the visual data (Rossato [0310], [0220] and [0342]), a residual representation of the visual data at least based on a first probability distribution parameter of the visual data and at least one scaling parameter (Rossato [0135], [0349] and [0532]), the residual representation representing a residual value compared to a second probability distribution representation of the visual data (Rossato [0135] and [0133]-[0134]), the at least one scaling parameter adjusting a value range of the residual representation (Rossato [0349]); and
perform the conversion based on the residual representation (Rossato [0220] and [0349]).
Rossato does not explicitly disclose a residual representation of the visual data at least based on at least one gain parameter and the at least one gain parameter adjusting a value range of the residual representation.
However, Gu teaches a residual representation of the visual data at least based on a first probability distribution parameter of the visual data and at least one gain parameter (Gu [0184]) and the at least one gain parameter adjusting a value range of the residual representation (Gu [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rossato’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Gu to map a residual in an observation space to a hidden space (Gu [0184]).
Regarding claim 15, Rossato in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the residual representation comprises a quantized residual representation or a de-quantized residual representation (Rossato [0916] and [0220]).
Regrading claim 17, Rossato in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the visual data into the at least one bitstream, and/or wherein the conversion includes decoding the visual data from the at least one bitstream (Rossato [0942] and fig. 65, #1330).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossato in view of Gu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Besenbruch et al. (WO 2022/084702 A1), hereinafter Besenbruch. Besenbruch was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 1/22/25 with a copy provided by the Applicant on the same date.
Regarding claim 2, Rossato in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1.
Rossato does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one bitstream comprises a first bitstream and a second bitstream, the first bitstream comprising arithmetic information of the visual data, the second bitstream comprising probability distribution information of the visual data.
However, Besenbruch teaches wherein the at least one bitstream comprises a first bitstream and a second bitstream, the first bitstream comprising arithmetic information of the visual data (Besenbruch p. 23, lines 31-33), the second bitstream comprising probability distribution information of the visual data (Besenbruch p. 51, lines 9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Rossato in view of Gu with the missing limitations as taught by Besenbruch to increase compression efficiency while preserving or increasing the displayed image quality (Gu [0184]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Rossato in view of Gu and Besenbruch teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the visual data from the first and second bitstreams (Besenbruch p. 7, lines 4-6), the at least one gain parameter comprises a first gain parameter (Gu [0184]),
wherein determining the residual representation comprises:
determining the first probability distribution parameter of the visual data based on the second bitstream and at least one model (Besenbruch p. 65, section 2.1, first 3 paragraphs); and
obtaining the residual representation of the visual data based on the first bitstream, the first probability distribution parameter and the first gain parameter (Rossato [0135], [0349], and [0532] and Gu [0184]); and
wherein performing the conversion comprises:
determining the visual data at least based on the residual representation of the visual data (Rossato [0220] and [0349]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 2 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Rossato in view of Gu and Besenbruch teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining the visual data comprises:
determining the second probability distribution representation of the visual data based on a first sample of the visual data and a prediction module (Rossato [0090] and Besenbruch p. 80, section 3.4);
determining a second sample of the visual data based on the second probability distribution representation of the visual data and the residual representation (Rossato [0090]); and
reconstructing the visual data based on the first and second samples and a synthesis model (Rossato [0347] and Besenbruch p. 62, section 1.4.2),
wherein determining the second probability distribution representation comprises:
determining context information of the visual data based on the first sample and a context module (Besenbruch p. 23, lines 1-10);
determining hyper information of the visual data at least based on the second bitstream and a second entropy model, wherein the hyper information is further determined based on a hyper coder (Besenbruch p. 22, lines 10-17 and p. 102, lines 5-13); and
determining the second probability distribution representation based on the context information, the hyper information and the prediction module (Rossato [0090] and Besenbruch p. 23, lines 1-10, p. 22, lines 10-17 and p. 80, section 3.4).
The same motivation for claim 2 applies to claim 3.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossato in view of Gu and Besenbruch as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0050963), hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claim 13, Rossato in view of Gu and Besenbruch teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the visual data into the first and second bitstreams (see claim 2), the at least one gain parameter comprises a second gain parameter associated with a decoding conversion (Gu [0164]), and
wherein performing the conversion comprises (Rossato [0470]):
determining the first and second bitstreams (see claim 2) at least based on the second gain parameter and the residual representation (Rossato [0470] and [0094] and Gu [0164]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 2 applies to claim 13.
Rossato discloses an inverse function (Rossato [0470]). Rossato does not explicitly disclose the at least one gain parameter comprises a second gain parameter inverse to a first gain parameter associated with a decoding conversion.
However, Tanaka teaches the at least one gain parameter comprises a second gain parameter inverse to a first gain parameter associated with a decoding conversion (Tanaka [0447]); and
determining the first and second bitstreams (see claim 2) at least based on the second gain parameter (Tanaka [0447] and [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Rossato in view of Gu and Besenbruch with the missing limitations as taught by Tanaka to be able to perform inverse scaling (Tanaka [0447]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of performing inverse scaling.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossato in view of Gu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0112258), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 14, Rossato in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1.
Rossato does not explicitly disclose wherein an inter channel correlation information (ICCI) filter is applied for at least one component of the visual data.
However, Li teaches wherein an inter channel correlation information (ICCI) filter is applied for at least one component of the visual data (Li [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Rossato in view of Gu with the missing limitations as taught by Li to be able to obtain chroma from luma and improve compression efficiency (Li [0160] and [0005]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossato in view of Gu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaikov et al. (US 20025/0133223), hereinafter Gaikov.
Regarding claim 16, Rossato in view of Gu teaches the method of claim 1.
Rossato does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one gain parameter comprises a plurality of gain vectors, a gain vector in the plurality of gain vectors having a plurality of gain components, the visual data comprising a plurality of components associated with a plurality of channels, a number of the plurality of gain components being a same number as a number of the plurality of channels, wherein a third gain vector is determined based on a convolution of a first gain vector and a second gain vector in the plurality of gain vectors.
However, Gaikov teaches, wherein the at least one gain parameter comprises a plurality of gain vectors (Gaikov [0032]), a gain vector in the plurality of gain vectors having a plurality of gain components, the visual data comprising a plurality of components associated with a plurality of channels, a number of the plurality of gain components being a same number as a number of the plurality of channels (Gaikov [0038]),
wherein a third gain vector is determined based on a convolution of a first gain vector and a second gain vector in the plurality of gain vectors (Gaikov [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Rossato in view of Gu with the missing limitations as taught by Gaikov to achieve higher compression quality (Gaikov [0033]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving compression quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482