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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 5/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites in part: “is expressed relative a number of states…” However, this should seemingly be --is expressed relative to a number of states…-- for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coban et al. (US 20200007873 A1) (hereinafter Coban).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites in part: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising:”
However, to be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated". MPEP §2111.05(1)(A). When a claimed "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Coban et al. (US 20200007873 A1) which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. See Coban, 0051 discloses a device may store software instructions in an appropriate and non-transitory ' computer-readable medium and may execute instructions by using hardware such as one or more processors to execute video encoding/decoding.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coban et al. (US 20200007873 A1) (hereinafter Coban).
Regarding claim 1, Coban discloses:
A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: [See Coban, ¶ 0023-0025, 0179-0181 discloses a decoder, as well as non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor for performing a video decoding procedure.]
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks and a plurality of quantized transform coefficients; [See Coban, ¶ 0049, 0065-0067 discloses signaling information defined by a video encoder such as syntax elements having values that describe characteristics of video blocks or other coded units. Further, that an encoder 200 produces transform coefficients, and that by performing the quantization process, video encoder 200 may reduce bit depth associated with some or all of the coefficients.]
determining a quantized level for a quantized transform coefficient of the plurality of quantized transform coefficients; [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0105 discloses dependent quantization state machine states depend on the parity of the coefficient levels. Coefficient significance and greater than 1 (gt1) flags coding contexts as well as the quantizers used for a coefficient are selected by the state of the previously coded coefficient. This scheme results in interleaved regular coded bins and bypass coded bins at coefficient level within a coefficient group. First quantizer Q0 maps transform coefficient levels to even integer multiples of a quantization step size A. A second quantizer Q1 maps transform coefficient levels to odd integer multiples of the quantization step size delta or to zero.]
selecting a quantizer from a set of three or more quantizers based on the quantized level; [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0105 discloses a quantizer that is used to perform the quantization is selected based on a state machine that is driven by its previous state and the parity of the level of the previously coded coefficient.]
deriving, using the quantizer, a dequantized transform coefficient for a first quantized transform coefficient of the plurality of quantized transform coefficients; and [See Coban, ¶ 0100, 0107 discloses that if, for a current coefficient, the s tate is 0 or 1 then video encoder and decoder may quantize/dequantize (respectively) using quantization/dequantization factor Q0. If, for the current coefficient, the state is 2 or 3, encoder/decoder may quantize/dequantize (respectively) using factor Q1.]
reconstructing a first block using the dequantized transform value. [See Coban, ¶ 0140, 0144 discloses inverse quantization unit 210 and inverse transform processing unit 212 may apply inverse quantization and inverse transforms to a quantized transform coefficient block, respectively, to reconstruct a residual block from the transform coefficient block. Reconstruction unit 214 may produce a reconstructed block corresponding to the current block. Encoder 200 may output a bitstream that includes the entropy encoded syntax elements needed to reconstruct blocks.]
Regarding claim 2, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected based on coded information. [See Coban, ¶ 0100-0104 discloses selecting a quantizer (Q0, Q1) based on a determined relative significance of a transform coefficient.]
Regarding claim 3, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected in accordance with a syntax element signaled in the video bitstream. [See Coban, ¶ 0023 discloses that a video encoder signals information that a video decoder uses to determine the coefficient values. As one example, the video encoder generates a significance flag (also called greater than 0 or gt0 flag).]
Regarding claim 7, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected using a state machine. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099 discloses selecting quantizers using a state machine and on the basis of a determined relative significance.]
Regarding claim 8, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected based on a current state index. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099 discloses selecting quantizers using a state machine and based on a determined relative significance, particularly mentioning that “transitioning from one state to another state is based on the current position in the state machine and the significance value.”]
Regarding claim 9, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Coban discloses:
wherein the current state index is expressed relative a number of states in the state machine. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099; 0100-0105, “Assume that the current position in the state machine is “1.” In this example, if a coefficient is significant, the state changes to state 0. If a coefficient is not significant, the state changes to state 2. Assume that the current position in the state machine is “2.” In this example, if a coefficient is significant, the state changes to state 3. If a coefficient is not significant, the state changes to state 1.” Each of a total number of states in the state machine is walked through, and thus the “current” state index is expressed relative to each state out of the total number of states.]
Regarding claim 10, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected based on a next state index. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0105 discloses specifically transitioning through each possible state in the state machine, from 0 to 3, in this example.]
Regarding claim 11, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Coban discloses:
wherein the quantizer is selected using a lookup table for the state machine. [See Coban, ¶ 0114-0115 discloses that states 0 and 1 use quantizer Q0, and states 2 and 3 use quantizer Q1. For significance map coding, the context set used to code is selected based on the quantizer used, i.e., Qx where x=state>>1. The encoder/decoder may determine the quantizer (e.g., quantization or dequantization factor) and select the context set from the plurality of context sets. In a coefficient group regular coded level bins (e.g., sig, gt1, gt2, gt3, gt4) are coded with the same contexts as in CE 7.2.1 (except for gt1, i.e., single set) coefficient by coefficient in the first pass; this is followed by grouped remaining level coding for all coefficients in a coefficient group. The context index derivation is identical to the method used in CE7.2.1 where full coefficient levels are replaced by coefficient levels reconstructed using up to the highest coded regular coded bin (resulting index is equal to the index derived from full coefficient value).]
Regarding claim 12, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Coban discloses:
wherein the lookup table is predefined. [See Coban, ¶ 0114-0118, Fig. 6 discloses determining a mapping between states and quantizers used.]
Regarding claim 13, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Coban discloses:
wherein the lookup table is signaled in the video bitstream. [See Coban, ¶ 0114-0118, 0144 discloses that contexts are neighboring information that maps a probability that is used during entropy coding. Fig. 6 illustrates the change in bitstream format – particularly, the proposed syntax and grouped bypass coded bins. A video encoder may output a bitstream that includes entropy encoded syntax elements needed to reconstruct blocks.]
Regarding claim 14, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Coban discloses:
wherein a transition to a next state in the state machine is determined based on a quantized level and a number of branches originating from a current state in the state machine. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0105 discloses the significance information is used to determine the quantization or dequantization factor. The current position in the state machine is “1.” In this example, if a coefficient is significant, the state changes to state 0. If a coefficient is not significant, the state changes to state 2. Assume that the current position in the state machine is “2.” In this example, if a coefficient is significant, the state changes to state 3. If a coefficient is not significant, the state changes to state 1. Assume that the current position in the state machine is “3.” In this example, if a coefficient is significant, the state changes to state 1. If a coefficient is not significant, the state remains at state 3.]
Regarding claim 15, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Coban discloses:
wherein the transition is determined using a mod function. [See Coban, ¶ 0023-0025 discloses that the video encoder encodes the various flags and remainder level values. For example, the gtX flags, including the significance flag, are context coded and the remainder level value is bypass coded. One of ordinary skill understands a “mod function” as corresponding with a “modulo” function, which finds a remainder of a division operation.]
Regarding claim 16, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Coban discloses:
wherein the transition is determined based on which range of a plurality of ranges the quantized level is within. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0106 discloses transitioning from one state to another state is based on the current position in the state machine and the significance value.]
Regarding claim 17, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Coban discloses:
wherein the plurality of ranges are based on a current state index. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0106 discloses transitioning from one state to another state is based on the current position in the state machine and the significance value.]
Regarding claim 18, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Coban discloses:
wherein the transition is further based on a current state index. [See Coban, ¶ 0094-0099, 0100-0106 discloses transitioning from one state to another state is based on the current position in the state machine and the significance value.]
Regarding claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been aware that decoding is simply the inverse operation of encoding and, in fact is often more generally referred to as "coding", encompassing both. Such a person would have been aware that in order to most accurately decode, it is typically best to use the same method on both the encoding and decoding ends.
Claim 19 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected based on the decoder of claim 1 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoder and encoding process with respect to video encoding claim 19 as such.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban in view of Henzel et al. (US 20230269385 A1) (hereinafter Henzel).
Regarding claim 4, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Coban does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein reconstruction values for the quantized level corresponding to respective quantizers of the set of three or more quantizers are uniformly distributed.
However, Henzel discloses:
wherein reconstruction values for the quantized level corresponding to respective quantizers of the set of three or more quantizers are uniformly distributed. [See Henzel, ¶ 0069-0070, 0075, 0081, 0165 discloses quantization level values corresponding to a uniform quantization function.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Coban to add the teachings of Henzel in order to provide selectable scaling or quantization of an output feature map (Henzel, paras. 0075, 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Coban discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Henzel discloses:
wherein reconstruction values for the quantized level corresponding to respective quantizers of the set of three or more quantizers are non-uniformly distributed. [See Henzel, ¶ 0069-0070, 0082-0083 discloses quantization level values corresponding to a non-uniform quantization function.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Coban to add the teachings of Henzel in order to provide selectable scaling or quantization of an output feature map (Henzel, paras. 0075, 0081).
Regarding claim 6, Coban in view of Henzel discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Henzel discloses:
wherein one or more parameters for determining a reconstruction value are signaled in the video bitstream. [See Henzel, ¶ 0083-0084 discloses signaling of a lookup table for determination quantization levels according to a non-uniform quantization function, wherein said lookup table parameters are signaled in a bitstream.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486