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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0101046 A1 (“Korodi”) in view of WD5: Working Draft 5 of High-Efficiency Video Coding (JCTVC-G1103) (“Bross”) (Note: Korodi is included in the IDS, as well as, Bross that is also previously attached in the last office action, dated 4/2/26).
Regarding claim 1, Korodi discloses an encoding apparatus (e.g. see encoder 10 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire a significance map (e.g. see significance map, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044]) of quantized transform coefficients of 4 * 4 blocks as a target (e.g. see block or matrix of quantized transform domain coefficients, e.g. see at least paragraph [0006], and see 4x4 luma block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044]), wherein the significance map is based on application of a scanning order to the quantized transform coefficients (e.g. see significance map of quantized transform domain coefficients is converted to a vector in accordance with the scan order, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044], [0093]-[0104]);
share a table for assignment of contexts between a context assigned to a luma component of the quantized transform coefficients of a 4 * 4 block and a context assigned to a chroma component of the quantized transform coefficients of the 4 * 4 block,
wherein the table is based on a mapping of a position in the significance map of the quantized transform coefficients to a corresponding context index increment using a single 15 element lookup table (e.g. see context assignment, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044], e.g. see context assignment in Figs. 3-4, e.g. see P4-9, in Fig. 4 that signifies 9 contexts to the 9 distinct parts of the 4x4 block (paragraph [0056]), may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and see context index increment in at least paragraphs [0106]-[0111]; the same single 15-element lookup table shown in paragraph [0110] is used if P4-9 is used or same for both 4x4 luma and chroma); and
apply a significance map encoding process (e.g. see encoding a significance map, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044]) in a state where encoding coefficients that share the contexts have a same grouping (e.g. see 4x4 luma and 4x4 chroma may both use a P4-9 partition set, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0065]-[0066]),
wherein the significance map encoding process uses a same number of contexts and a same context index increment mapping for the luma component and the chroma component (context assignment, paragraphs [0006], [0042]-[0044], e.g. see context assignment in Figs. 3-4, e.g. see P4-9, in Fig. 4 that signifies 9 contexts to the 9 distinct parts of the 4x4 block (paragraph [0056]), may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and see context index increment in at least paragraphs [0106]-[0111]; thus, if P4-9 is used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, then the same mapping would be used for both luma and chroma in paragraph [0110]), and
the single 15 element lookup table is [0,1,2,3,4,5,2,3,6,6,7,7,8,8,7] (e.g. see P4-9 may be used for both 4x4 luma and chroma, paragraphs [0065]-[0066], e.g. see paragraphs [0106]-[0110] and Table after [0110] (shown below for the 4x4): P4-9
Specification of ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
3
6
6
7
7
8
8
7
),
the significance map encoding process codes, based on the single 15 element lookup table, video content to generate a coded bitstream (e.g. see encoder 10 receives a video source 12 and produces an encoded bitstream 14 as shown in Fig. 1).
Although Korodi discloses the single 15 element lookup table is [0,1,2,3,4,5,2,3,6,6,7,7,8,8,7], it is noted Korodi differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose [0,1,4,5,2,3,4,5,6,6,8,8,7,7,8].
Bross however, teaches [0,1,4,5,2,3,4,5,6,6,8,8,7,7,8] (e.g. see
Specification of ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ctxIdxMap4x4[i]
0
1
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
8
7
7
8
, Table 9-40 on page 187, Section 9.2.3.1.1.5 Derivation process of ctxIdxInc for the syntax element significant_coeff_flag).
Further, although Korodi disclose the video content is coded (e.g. see encoder 10 in Fig. 1), it is noted Korodi differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose without determination of a context offset based on luma and chroma decision of at least one significance map of an 8x8 significance map, a 16x16 significance map, or a 32x32 significance map. Bross however, teaches without determination of a context offset based on luma and chroma decision of at least one significance map of an 8x8 significance map, a 16x16 significance map, or a 32x32 significance map (e.g. see ctxIdxInc is derived using the color component index cIdx and sigCtx, see Equation (9-64)-(9-65), i.e. without determination of context offset, Section 9.2.3.1.1.5 Derivation process of ctxIdxInc for the syntax element significant_coeff_flag).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the references of Korodi and Bross before him/her, to incorporate Bross into Korodi in order to conform to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard for higher compression and flexible coded video representation for a wide variety of network environments.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,025,938 in view of the cited prior art above. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another. The difference with the patent are the newly added limitations; however, these limitations are well-known and taught by Korodi and Bross as mapped above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claims of the Patent with Korodi and Bross in order to balance computation speed and compression efficiency by effective partition set and context mappings, as well as, conform to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard for higher compression and flexible coded video representation for a wide variety of network environments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the Remarks that Korodi and Bross do not teach “the video content is coded without determination of a context offset based on luma and chroma decision of at least one significance map of an 8x8 significance map, a 16x16 significance map, or a 32x32 significance map”.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection above has been clarified in order to illustrate that the claims remain unpatentable over Korodi in view of Bross. Bross, in at least Section 9.2.3.1.1.5 Derivation process of ctxIdxInc for the syntax element significant_coeff_flag, teaches that ctxIdxInc is derived using the color component index cIdx and sigCtx, see Equation (9-64)-(9-65); thus, Bross teaches to deriving ctxIdxInc, for video content coding, without determination of context offset that meets the limitations in the broadest reasonable sense.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Korodi et al., Encoding and decoding significant coefficient flags for small Transform Units using partition sets (JCTVC-G657) (in the IDS)
Hsu et al., US 2015/0010055 A1, discloses method and apparatus for unification of significance map context selection (in the IDS)
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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights