DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 03/07/2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/17/2025 and 10/30/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It appears the claims relate to bit rate control for determining a quantization parameter output used in image coding (see for e.g. figs. 5-6 of the Instant Disclosure).
It is recommended that the title include terms that more clearly indicate the nature of the invention (e.g. quantization parameter, bits, adjustment, etc.).
Claim Objections
6. Claims 3, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims appear to rely on both “lossless” and “lossy” information for the same current coding unit, where a determined target number of bits, which is based on a “fourth number of lossless bits” and “information amount” (i.e. “first number of lossy bits” and an “average number of lossless bits”), is used to indicate an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossy coding. Since the coding relies on a determined quantization parameter, it appears this is a lossy process. The examiner would like to confirm this understanding of these claims.
7. Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “A method…”. Recommend changing this to “An image decoding method…”. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claims 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “A method…”. Recommend changing this to “An image encoding method…”. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “A decoder…”. Recommend changing this to “An image decoder…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2025/0337915 A1 (with reference to Priority documentation CN 202210887907.0 – see attached), hereinafter referred to as Wang, where Wang describes methods for determining a quantization parameter of a current block, and on the basis of the quantization parameter, decoding the current block (e.g. abstract). Please note, figures 1-11 in the priority documentation correspond with those in the published application. Details of Wang are provided below.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Wang discloses and/or suggests “A method, comprising: obtaining a bitstream of a current coding unit in an image bitstream [Please refer to decoder 112 in fig. 3]; determining an adjustment value of a first number of lossy bits of the current coding unit [Please refer to ¶0289 regarding adjustment of the bpp (bits per pixel) parameter. Also see bppAdj in for e.g. ¶0348-¶0349. Said parameter coincides with Bpp in for e.g. ¶0116-¶0118 of the filed specification] based on a data storage status of a bitstream buffer [See for e.g. fig. 10 with respect to the buffer size. Also please note ¶0348-¶0349] and an approximate value of a second number of to-be-decoded coding units [See for e.g. RemainBlksLog2 in ¶0348 which can be construed to mean a number of coding units that remain to be decoded]; determining the first number based on an initial value of the first number and the adjustment value [The adjustment value of bpp (bppAdj) above is understood to yield a new value for bpp from its original value. This is shown in ¶0348]; determining a quantization parameter based on the first number [Once bpp is adjusted, the quantization parameter (QP) can then be determined (e.g. ¶0348 and ¶0368-¶0369)]; and decoding the bitstream based on the quantization parameter [In light of the foregoing, please refer to decoder 112 in fig. 3].
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the adjustment value comprises: determining a difference between an expected number of bits in the bitstream buffer at an end of decoding of a current frame [See calculation of bppAdj in for e.g. ¶0348], and a third number of bits in the bitstream buffer [Given the BRI of “a third number of bits in the bitstream buffer”, please see ¶0348, where the buffer can store any number of bits which can be construed as said “third number”]; and determining the adjustment value based on the difference and a bit number of a binary non- zero most significant bit of the second number.” [See ¶0348 with respect to RemainBlksLog2 (highest binary digit of the total no. of encoding units in a slice – ¶0340), as used to determine the adjustment value for bpp]
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 2 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: determining a fourth number of lossless bits of the current coding unit based on image content of the current coding unit [See for e.g. ¶0009 with respect to a number of bits (e.g. a fourth number or any number of bits) required for lossless encoding of a current block. ¶0009 further discusses the complexity of an image which is construed to relate to its content. Also refer to figs. 5-6 for additional support]; determining an information amount of the current coding unit based on the first number and an average number of lossless bits of the current coding unit [See for e.g. ¶0169 with reference to fig. 6, where the control code parameter, which includes the block-grade complexity level of the current block, can include a target bpp and a number of bits for average lossless encoding], wherein the information amount indicates a complexity of content that is expressed by the current coding unit and that is in content expressed by the current frame [Same as above with respect to the block-grade complexity level of the current block]; determining a target number of bits of the current coding unit based on the fourth number and the information amount [See fig. 6 where a target number of bits can be determined], wherein the target number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossy coding on the current coding unit when the content is referred to [Said determined target number of bits is the number of bits required to predict the encoding of the current block (¶0169), which can be construed as an “expected number of bits” that are needed for prediction]; and further determining the quantization parameter further based on the target number. [As per figs. 6-7, a QP can then be determined based on the determined number of bits above]
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein decoding the bitstream comprises obtaining a reconstructed image of the current coding unit.” [Please refer to decoder 112 in fig. 3]
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse operations of each other that enable compressed video to be decompressed and reconstructed at a receiving device. See the encoder and decoder in for e.g. figs. 1-3 of Wang.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please refer to ¶0103-¶0104 and ¶0385-¶0388 of Wang, for example.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 13 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when decoding the bitstream, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the decoder to obtain a reconstructed image of the current coding unit by performing dequantization on the bitstream.” [Please refer to decoder 112 in fig. 3]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Thirumalai et al. US 10,356,428 B2, hereinafter referred to as Thirumalai.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 13 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Wang does not explicitly reference the features of claim 20. Thirumalai on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein when decoding the bitstream, the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the decoder to perform bit rate control by adjusting a bit rate.” [See rate controller 170 in video decoder 30] Recognizing Thirumalai’s quantization parameter (QP) update classification techniques (e.g. abstract), 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 work of Wang for determining a QP on the basis of a target bit number (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Thirumalai as above for improving the updating of a QP via the selection of an appropriate technique for calculating a QP adjustment value based on detected conditions when transitioning between flat and complex regions in an image and/or when the fullness of a buffer is within a threshold value of being empty or full (e.g. col. 3 lines 35-41 and col. 4 lines 26-32).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: obtaining a fifth number of coded bits of a previous coding unit in the current frame, wherein the current coding unit is decoded at a current time, and wherein the previous coding unit is decoded at a time before the current time; determining the fourth number based on the fifth number; determining the average number based on the fifth number, wherein the fourth number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current coding unit, and wherein the average number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current frame; and further determining the quantization parameter further based on the fourth number and the average number.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising determining, based on the fifth number, the third number by decoding the previous coding unit.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: obtaining a fifth number of coded bits of a previous coding unit in the current frame, wherein the current coding unit is a coding unit encoded at a current moment, and the previous coding unit is a coding unit encoded at a moment before the current moment; determining the fourth number based on the fifth number; determining the average number based on the fifth number, wherein the fourth number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current coding unit, and wherein the average number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current frame; and determining the quantization parameter further based on the fourth number and the average number.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining, based on the fifth number, a third number of bits in the bitstream buffer by decoding the previous coding unit.
17. The decoder of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the decoder to: obtain a fifth number of coded bits of a previous coding unit in the current frame, wherein the current coding unit is decoded at a current time, and wherein the previous coding unit is decoded at a time before the current time; determine the fourth number based on the fifth number; and determine the average number based on the fifth number, wherein the fourth number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current coding unit, and wherein the average number indicates an expected number of bits obtained by performing lossless coding on the current frame; and obtain the quantization parameter further based on the fourth number and the average number.
18. The decoder of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the decoder to determine, based on the fifth number, the third number by decoding the previous coding unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references. For e.g. Huang et al. US 2021/0409724 A1 describe a method for bitrate adjustment in an encoding process (e.g. abstract and fig. 2). Also Wang et al. US 2016/0227219 A1 describe a method to enable performance improvements for HEVC encoding via picture-level QP rate control (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486