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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/647,364 filed on May 14th, 2024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended 11 to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejection.
The pending claims are 1 – 20 [Page 12 lines 1 – 4].
Applicant amended the Specification to address Examiner’s Drawing Objection [Page 12 lines 15 – 19].
Applicant amended claim 11 to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejection [Page 12 line 20 – Page 13 line 2]. The Examiner reconsiders the rejection in view of the amended claim.
Applicant does NOT comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis section, however, in view of the apparent agreement claim 20 does NOT invoke Functional Analysis, the Examiner in the interest of brevity deletes the section.
Applicant's arguments filed June 10th, 2026 [Regarding Examiner’s 103 Rejection] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 12 lines 5 – 12 and Page 13 lines 3 – 6].
Second, the Applicant contends the first “for each state including …” limitation of claim 20 is not taught by the combination of references cited [Page 13 lines 7 – 16].
Third, the Applicant provides their summary of Chuang [Page 13 line 17 – Page 14 line 22]. The Examiner notes Chuang was modified by Schwartz as a combination of references were cited (e.g. combining Schwarz’ RDOQ in place of Chuang’s MSE cost function which Schwarz). The Examiner answers the argument in a later point.
Fourth, the Applicant contents Xu does not render obvious features of the dispute “for each state …” limitation in claim 20 [Page 14 line 23 – Page 15 line 2] and then provides their summary of Xu [Page 15 line 3 – Page 16 line 6]. The Examiner notes Xu is to be viewed in combination with Chuang and Schwarz where Xu renders obvious using a minimum cost function (e.g. those taught by Chuang or Schwarz) to traverse quantizer states (e.g. even and odd) / trellis quantizers in at least the cited sections.
Fifth, the Applicant contends Schwarz does not render obvious the disputed features of claim 20 and provides their own summary of Schwarz [Page 16 line 7 – Page 17 line 15]. However, contrary to Applicant’s assertions [Page 17 lines 4 – 9], Shwarz Figures 14 – 16 at least teaches state transitions for each coefficient and considers the state transitions especially in Figure 20 showing the minimum cost path selected (thus for each coefficient the even / odd state / parity was considered). Schwarz also renders also adjusting from MSE cost functions to use RDOQ at least in the cited sections to modify Chuang’s teachings. Chuang also renders obvious the for each requirement at least in the cited sections in particular the formulas in Paragraphs 37 – 39 and Table 4 (describing even / odd transitions where the closest is rendered obvious and further described in Schwarz Paragraphs 128 – 134 (closest / zero quantization index described) and additionally the algorithm in Schwarz Paragraphs 107 – 110 is for each coefficient to search for the quantization state / transition to use.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
While the Applicant’s points may possibly be understood to which the Examiner respectfully disagrees thus the Rejection has been maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 31st, 2026; June 7th, 2026; and July 12th, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the Final Rejection (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.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed March 11th, 2026). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0392717 A1 referred to as “Chuang” throughout), and further in view of Xu, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0133210 A1 referred to as “Xu” throughout citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Application 63/544,938) and Schwarz, et al (US PG PUB 2021/0084304 A1 referred to as “Schwarz” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s November 18th, 2025 IDS].
Regarding claim 1, see claim 20 which is the system performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 20 which is the system performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 6 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 7 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 8 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 9 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 10 which is the method performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 20, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
one or more memories storing instructions [Chuang Figures 1 and 9 as well as Paragraphs 83 – 84 (flash memory, CPU / DSP (processor obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art), media, hard disk and other memory implementation storing programs) and 87 – 88 (programs on memories for processors / CPUs to execute)]; and
one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of [Chuang Figures 1 and 9 as well as Paragraphs 83 – 84 (flash memory, CPU / DSP (processor obvious variants to one of ordinary skill in the art), media, hard disk and other memory implementation storing programs) and 87 – 88 (programs on memories for processors / CPUs to execute)]:
generating a vector of transform coefficients of prediction residues that are associated with a block of source video data [Chuang Figure 1 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 116 and its output to the transform step in reference character 118 and quantizer in reference character 120) as well as Paragraphs 4 – 5 (transform and quantize residues / residuals), 32, and 34 (quantizing transformed residues); Schwartz Figure 5 as well as Paragraphs 112 – 113 (rendering obvious organizing the block data as vectors)];
selecting a first stage of a trellis data structure and a first transform coefficient included in the vector of transform coefficients [Chuang Figures 2 – 5 (see at least reference character 510 for the first coefficient) and 6 – 9 (Figure 4 and 7 – 8 for the trellis structure) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 43 and 70 – 73 (initial state for initial coefficient and quantizer used); Xu Figures 4 – 10 (states and transition processing transform coefficients and quantizers to use see at least reference characters S1010 and S1020) as well as Paragraphs 83 – 89 (initial state in the trellis data structure based on the first transform coefficient and first state transition / stage based on coefficients), 112 – 115 and 130 – 134 (methods for processing first transform coefficients)];
for each state included in the first stage of the trellis data structure, computing a cumulative cost function value for each of reconstructing the first transform coefficient at a zero quantization index, coding the first transform coefficient with a selected sub-quantizer at a closest non-zero quantization index with even parity, and coding the first transform coefficient with the selected sub-quantizer at a closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity, wherein each cumulative cost function value includes a coding cost and a distortion [Chuang Figures 2 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 34 – 38 (see MSE and number of bits for a cost in Paragraph 34 rendering obvious the “cost function” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art also in combination with Schwartz Paragraphs 103 – 110, 229, and 240 (Lagrangian cost function or use of RDOQ cost functions); Also building / traversing states by the coefficients and vector / lists of quantizer jumps (even or odd) in Paragraphs 37 – 38), 40 – 43 (including Table 1 in which traversal of the trellis is described basing state transition on odd / even parity with accumulated cost consideration with the parameters / flags in Paragraphs 45 – 60), 67 – 71 (dependent quantization / TCQ equivalents and Table 2 based on parity); Xu Figures 4 – 8 (state transitions and parity considerations) and 9 – 10 (methods to traverse the state tables) as well as Paragraph 70 – 76 (shifts / changes in quantizers based on transform coefficient with cost considerations in accumulating cost function basing state transition on odd / even parity), and 109 (select near 0 quantizer shift /changes rendering obvious selecting quantizer changes near zero to one of ordinary skill in the art combinable with Schwartz Paragraphs 121 – 128 (Figures 6 – 8 in which the changes in state are small / near zero to take))];
for each state included in the first stage of the trellis data structure, modifying the trellis data structure with branches corresponding to the zero quantization index and the cumulative cost function value computed for reconstructing the first transform coefficient at the zero quantization index, the closest non-zero quantization index with even parity and the cumulative cost function value computed for coding the first transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with even parity, and the closest nonzero quantization index with odd parity and the cumulative cost function value computed for coding the first transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity [See previous limitation for citations (cost functions, stages, and trellis structures to traverse with odd / even parity) and additionally Chuang Paragraph 42 (reducing complexity using trellis tree / path traversal based on odd / even parity of the change in quantizer), 42 – 57 (traversing between stages and accumulating costs based on parity); Xu Paragraphs 72 – 78 and 87 – 92 (minimum cumulative cost for traversing the trellis structure and quantizer selection); Schwarz Figures 14 – 16 and 20 (selecting path / state transitions) as well as Paragraphs 72 and 112 – 118 (quantization state selected and traversal of the states based on scan order of transform coefficients) 228 – 240 (pruning connections based on minimize cost (e.g. RDOQ) in which the minimum cost aggregated removes / reduces paths to traverse)];
generating a vector of quantization indices that corresponds to a path that passes through all stages of the trellis data structure and has a lowest overall cumulative cost function value [Chuang Figures 2 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 42 and 67 – 73 (smallest cost of the path to entropy encode / provide as the quantizer- combinable with Xu Paragraph 72 (smallest cost path to encode)); Schwartz Figures 5 and 8 as well as Paragraphs 112 – 113 (rendering obvious organizing the block data / paths as vectors), 130 – 134 (vector indices as traversing the path), 226 – 240 (path with minimum cost as an array / vector (combine with Paragraphs 112 – 113)), and 244]; and
performing one or more entropy coding operations on the vector of quantization indices to generate an encoded version of the block of source video data [See previous limitation for citations and additionally Chuang Figure 1 (see at least reference character 122) as well as Paragraphs 39 – 47 (entropy encoded path of minimum cost); Schwartz Figure 6 (see at least reference character 42) as well as Paragraphs 112 – 118 (suggestions / teaching for the path to be represented as a vector), 132 – 134, 150 – 163 (entropy encoding trellis paths / indices / quantizer state changes where the parts are treated as vectors), 167 – 174 (scan order / 1D treatment to build / determine minimum cost paths) and 226 – 240 (entropy encode the minimum cost path / traversal)].
The motivation to combine Xu with Chuang is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding [Xu Paragraph 2] in order to improve compression efficiency by improving the quantization shifting / adjustment state machine [Xu Paragraphs 64 – 66 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Schwartz with Xu and Chuang is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of quantizing a residual signal [Schwartz Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to reduce the bitrate needed to encode the video [Schwartz Paragraphs 3 – 4 and 16 – 18 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
selecting a second stage included in the trellis data structure and a second transform coefficient included in the vector of transform coefficients [See “for each state […] computing …” limitation as the second stage is an obvious duplicate of the first stage (Obvious to Duplicate MPEP2144.04 VI B) and additionally Xu Figures 3 – 8 as well as Paragraphs 100 – 106 (second stage / second machine) and 125 – 137 (second state transition similar to the first transition processed); Schwartz Figure 8 as well as Paragraphs 127 – 133 (second stage / quantization to process after the first, 137 – 139 and 142 – 149 (second states / processes for trellis traversal)];
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 3, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
for each state included in the second stage of the trellis data structure, selecting a sub-quantizer to use when coding the second transform coefficient at a closest non-zero quantization index with even parity and when coding the second transform coefficient at a closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity [See claim 1 “for each stage […] computing …” limitation and claim 2 “second stage” for citations as the second stage is an obvious duplicate of the first stage (Obvious to Duplicate MPEP2144.04 VI B)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 4, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
for each state included in the second stage of the trellis data structure, modifying the trellis data structure with branches corresponding to a zero quantization index and a cumulative cost function value computed for reconstructing the second transform coefficient at a zero quantization index, the closest non-zero quantization index with even parity and a cumulative cost function value computed for coding the second transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with even parity, and the closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity and a cumulative cost function value computed for coding the second transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity [See claim 1 “for each stage […] modifying …” limitation and claim 2 “second stage” for citations as the second stage is an obvious duplicate of the first stage (Obvious to Duplicate MPEP2144.04 VI B)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 5, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
further comprising, for a first destination state included in a third stage of the trellis data structure, retaining a first corresponding branch that is associated with a lowest cumulative cost function value, and pruning any other corresponding branch that is associated with a cumulative cost function value that is greater than the lowest cumulative cost function value [Chuang Figures 4 and 7 – 8 (traversal of the trellis structure) as well as Paragraph 42 (reducing complexity using trellis tree / path traversal based on odd / even parity of the change in quantizer), 43 – 57 (traversing between stages and accumulating costs based on parity); Xu Paragraphs 72 – 78 and 87 – 92 (minimum cumulative cost for traversing the trellis structure and quantizer selection); Schwarz Figures 14 – 16 and 20 (selecting path / state transitions and pruning the path with costs computed) as well as Paragraphs 72 and 112 – 118 (quantization state selected and traversal of the states based on scan order of transform coefficients) 228 – 240 (pruning connections based on minimize cost (e.g. RDOQ) in which the minimum cost aggregated removes / reduces paths to traverse)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 6, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
generating quantization metadata, and storing at least a portion of the metadata in memory [See claim 1 for citations of the claimed “memory” and additionally Xu Paragraphs 38 – 40, 49, and 56 (metadata for prediction / decoding blocks including reconstruction information thus rendering obvious the inclusion of the quantization trellis structure to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 7, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
wherein the quantization metadata includes at least one of a parity of a previous quantization index, a trellis state associated with the quantization index, one or more trellis states associated with one or more previous quantization indices, or a sub-quantizer used to generate the quantization index [Chuang Figures 2 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 42 and 67 – 73 (smallest cost of the path to entropy encode / provide as the quantizer- combinable with Xu Paragraphs 38 – 40, 49, and 56 (metadata for prediction / decoding blocks including reconstruction information thus rendering obvious the inclusion of the quantization trellis structure to one of ordinary skill in the art) and 72 (smallest cost path to encode); Schwartz Figures 5 and 8 as well as Paragraphs 112 – 113 (rendering obvious organizing the block data / paths as vectors), 130 – 134 (vector indices as traversing the path thus the states with the indices and previous states are part of the metadata), 226 – 240 (path with minimum cost as an array / vector (combine with Paragraphs 112 – 113) rendering obvious trellis states used), and 244].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 8, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
further comprising transmitting the vector of quantization indices to an entropy coding engine that performs the one or more entropy coding operations [Chuang Figure 1 (see at least reference character 122), and 2 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 39 – 47 (entropy encoded path of minimum cost) and 67 – 73 (smallest cost of the path to entropy encode / provide as the quantizer- combinable with Xu Paragraph 72 (smallest cost path to encode)); Xu Figure 3 (see at least reference character 340) as well as Paragraphs 50 – 54 (transmitting encoded data); Schwartz Figure 5 – 8 (see at least reference character 42) as well as Paragraphs 112 – 118 (suggestions / teaching for the path to be represented as a vector), 130 – 134 (vector indices as traversing the path), 150 – 163 (entropy encoding trellis paths / indices / quantizer state changes where the parts are treated as vectors), 167 – 174 (scan order / 1D treatment to build / determine minimum cost paths), 226 – 240 (path with minimum cost as an array / vector (combine with Paragraphs 112 – 113) and entropy encode the minimum cost path / traversal), and 244].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 9, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
generating an initial version of the trellis data structure that includes sequential trellis stages, wherein each trellis stage corresponds to a different transform coefficient [Chuang Figures 3 – 8 as well as Paragraphs 42 – 44 (traversing the states in the trellis structure) and 71 – 73 (traversing states and transform coefficients to process where the coefficients correspond to next states / traverse of the trellis structure); Xu Figures 5 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 83 – 89 (traversing trellis structure / state machine scanning through transform coefficients); Schwartz Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included)) and 13 – 16 (state update / change with each new coefficient to process) as well as Paragraphs 104 – 110 (scanning / going through the transform coefficients), 166 – 174 (coefficient scan order and state / trellis stage relationship), 193 – 198 (initial coefficient and state information for the path / traversal of the state machine)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 10, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
wherein an initial stage included in the initial version of the trellis data structure includes an uncoded state and a different state for each sub-quantizer included in a plurality of sub-quantizers, and a subsequent stage included in the initial version of the trellis data structure includes an uncoded state and a different state for each state represented in a state transition table [Chuang Figures 3 – 8 as well as Paragraphs 42 – 44 (traversing the states in the trellis structure) and 71 – 73 (traversing states and transform coefficients to process where the coefficients correspond to next states / traverse of the trellis structure); Xu Figures 5 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 83 – 89 (traversing trellis structure / state machine scanning through transform coefficients); Schwartz Figures 5 – 8 (subfigures included)) and 13 – 16 (state update / change with each new coefficient to process) as well as Paragraphs 104 – 110 (scanning / going through the transform coefficients), 166 – 174 (coefficient scan order and state / trellis stage relationship), 193 – 198 (initial coefficient and state information for the path / traversal of the state machine), 221 (considerations in regular quantization state transitions / using dependent (TCQ) transitions), and 228 – 240 (cost of traversing trellis computing from an initial state based on each transform coefficient)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 12, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
for each state included in the first stage of the trellis data structure, selecting a sub-quantizer to use when coding the first transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with even parity and when coding the first transform coefficient at the closest non-zero quantization index with odd parity [Chuang Figures 2 – 9 as well as Paragraphs 34 – 38 (see MSE and number of bits for a cost in Paragraph 34 rendering obvious the “cost function” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art also in combination with Schwartz Paragraphs 103 – 110, 229, and 240 (Lagrangian cost function or use of RDOQ cost functions); Also building / traversing states by the coefficients and vector / lists of quantizer jumps (even or odd) in Paragraphs 37 – 38), 40 – 43 (including Table 1 in which traversal of the trellis is described basing state transition on odd / even parity with accumulated cost consideration with the parameters / flags in Paragraphs 45 – 60), 67 – 71 (dependent quantization / TCQ equivalents and Table 2 based on parity); Xu Figures 4 – 8 (state transitions and parity considerations) and 9 – 10 (methods to traverse the state tables) as well as Paragraph 74 – 80 (shifts / changes in quantizers based on transform coefficient with cost considerations in accumulating cost function basing state transition on odd / even parity where odd parity of the quantization index is considered for the state change), and 109 (select near 0 quantizer shift /changes rendering obvious selecting quantizer changes near zero to one of ordinary skill in the art combinable with Schwartz Paragraphs 121 – 128 (Figures 6 – 8 in which the changes in state are small / near zero to take))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 13, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
for a first destination state included in a second stage of the trellis data structure, retaining a first corresponding branch that is associated with a lowest cumulative cost function value, and pruning any other corresponding branch that is associated with a cumulative cost function value that is greater than the lowest cumulative cost function value [Chuang Figures 4 and 7 – 8 (traversal of the trellis structure) as well as Paragraph 42 (reducing complexity using trellis tree / path traversal based on odd / even parity of the change in quantizer), 43 – 57 (traversing between stages and accumulating costs based on parity); Xu Paragraphs 72 – 78 and 87 – 92 (minimum cumulative cost for traversing the trellis structure and quantizer selection); Schwarz Figures 14 – 16 and 20 (selecting path / state transitions and pruning the path with costs computed) as well as Paragraphs 72, 112 – 118 (quantization state selected and traversal of the states based on scan order of transform coefficients), and 228 – 240 (pruning connections based on minimize cost (e.g. RDOQ) in which the minimum cost aggregated removes / reduces paths to traverse where the final node is an obvious variant of the claimed destination state to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Regarding claim 14, Chuang teaches techniques of trellis / dependent quantization with state transition with suggestions of pruning / making the traversing efficient. Xu teaches cost computation considerations in trellis / dependent quantization state traversal. Schwartz teaches additional considerations / simplifications to quantization states using known techniques and traversal methods to combine with Xu and Chuang.
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 Chuang with the cost computation considerations of Xu and the state transition considerations of Schwartz. The combination teaches
assigning the lowest cumulative cost function value to the first destination state [Chuang Figures 4 and 7 – 8 (traversal of the trellis structure) as well as Paragraph 42 (reducing complexity using trellis tree / path traversal based on odd / even parity of the change in quantizer), 43 – 57 (traversing between stages and accumulating costs based on parity); Xu Paragraphs 72 – 78 and 87 – 92 (minimum cumulative cost for traversing the trellis structure and quantizer selection); Schwarz Figures 14 – 16 and 20 (selecting path / state transitions and pruning the path with costs computed) as well as Paragraphs 72 and 112 – 118 (quantization state selected and traversal of the states based on scan order of transform coefficients) 228 – 240 (pruning connections based on minimize cost (e.g. RDOQ) in which the minimum cost aggregated removes / reduces paths to traverse and the location of the cost determined as minimum is the destination state as the end of the traverse where the final node is an obvious variant of the claimed destination state to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Chuang, Xu, and Schwartz.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights