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(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang et al. (US 20190058883) (hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Chiang paragraphs 2, 4, and 35, which discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for their dependence on claims 15, because they do not contain additional limitations that overcome the present rejection.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (WO 2007019790) (hereinafter He) in view of Chiang et al. (US 20190058883) (hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches A method for coding a quantized transform block, comprising:
selecting a wavefront scan order for coding quantized transformed coefficients of the quantized transform block, wherein: the quantized transform block is of size NxN, the wavefront scan order is such that locations (x, y-1), (x, y-2), and (x, y-3) are sequentially coded and locations (x-1, y), (x-2, y), and (x-3, y) are sequentially coded, for at least one x and one y where 2 ≤ x < N and 2 ≤ y < N ; selecting a probability distribution for coding a quantized transform coefficient of the quantized transform coefficients (see He pages 2, 6-9, 12, 25, and table 3 regarding scan order for quantized transform coefficients of an NxN block where the scan order is bottom to top and right to left in a flipped L-shaped region that follow first and second axes of the flipped L-shaped region with a quantized transform coefficient at locations p,p increasing from the x and y coordinates, and a probability distribution for coding a quantized transform is selected, and entropy coding the quantized transformed coefficient using the probability distribution),
entropy coding the quantized transformed coefficient using the probability distribution (see He pages 2, 6-9, 12, 25, and table 3 regarding scan order for quantized transform coefficients of an NxN block where the scan order is bottom to top and right to left in a flipped L-shaped region that follow first and second axes of the flipped L-shaped region with a quantized transform coefficient at locations p,p increasing from the x and y coordinates, and a probability distribution for coding a quantized transform is selected, and entropy coding the quantized transformed coefficient using the probability distribution).
However, He does not explicitly teach multiple neighbors as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Chiang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a context model for selecting the probability distribution include at least two immediate neighbors of the quantized transform coefficient in the wavefront scan order (see Chiang paragraph 98 and figure 7 regarding entropy coding context locations including a plurality of coefficients adjacent to the current coefficient- in combination with He, which determines a context model with context locations, multiple immediate neighbor coefficients may be used for selecting a context model); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of He to include the teaching of Chiang so that in combination with He, which determines a context model with context locations, multiple immediate neighbor coefficients may be used for selecting a context model.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the process of determining a context model (see Chiang paragraph 98 and figure 7).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of He and Chiang teaches wherein: the wavefront scan order is characterized by coding respective quantized transform coefficients of flipped L-shaped regions, and first quantized transform coefficients along a first axis of a flipped L-shaped region are coded followed by coding second quantized transform coefficients along a second axis of the flipped L-shaped region (see He pages 2, 6-9, 12, 25, and table 3 regarding scan order for quantized transform coefficients of an NxN block where the scan order is bottom to top and right to left in a flipped L-shaped region that follow first and second axes of the flipped L-shaped region with a quantized transform coefficient at locations p,p increasing from the x and y coordinates, and a probability distribution for coding a quantized transform is selected, and entropy coding the quantized transformed coefficient using the probability distribution).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of He and Chiang teaches wherein the flipped L-shaped region includes a quantized transform coefficient at a location (p, p) of the quantized transform block and all other quantized transform coefficient having coordinates (p, y) and (x, p) such that y ≤ p and x ≤ p (see He pages 2, 6-9, 12, 25, and table 3 regarding scan order for quantized transform coefficients of an NxN block where the scan order is bottom to top and right to left in a flipped L-shaped region that follow first and second axes of the flipped L-shaped region with a quantized transform coefficient at locations p,p increasing from the x and y coordinates, and a probability distribution for coding a quantized transform is selected, and entropy coding the quantized transformed coefficient using the probability distribution).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of He and Chiang teaches wherein a number of immediate neighbors of the quantized transform coefficient used as context coefficients depends on a location of the quantized transform coefficient (see Chiang paragraph 98 and figure 7 regarding entropy coding context locations including a plurality of coefficients adjacent to the current coefficient- in combination with He, which determines a context model with context locations, multiple immediate neighbor coefficients may be used for selecting a context model- it is obvious that the edge locations would produce different results than more central locations).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the process of determining a context model (see Chiang paragraph 98 and figure 7).
Independent claim(s) 8 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a device with a processor as taught by Chiang paragraphs 2, 4, and 35, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 9, 11, and 14 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 2, 4, and 7, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 15 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream as taught by Chiang paragraphs 2, 4, and 35, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 2 and 4 and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (WO 2007019790) (hereinafter He) in view of Chiang et al. (US 20190058883) (hereinafter Chiang), further in view of Seregin et al. (US 20130177070) (hereinafter Seregin).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of He and Chiang does not explicitly teach the context calculations as needed for the limitations of claim 3.
Seregin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: obtaining a context as a weighted combination of context coefficients of the quantized transform coefficient, wherein a first weight is used with a first context coefficient that is along a same dimension in the flipped L-shaped region as the quantized transform coefficient and a second weight that is lower than the first weight is used with a second context coefficient that is not in the flipped L-shaped region (see Seregin paragraphs 204-208 and figure 15 regarding allocating different weights to different locations when determining the context while using coefficients, where closer locations receive a larger weight- in combination with He, the weights along the same dimension in the flipped L-shaped region or for an immediate neighbor may be higher than the weights not in the same dimension or not an immediate neighbor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of He and Chiang to include the teaching of Seregin so that in combination with He, the weights along the same dimension in the flipped L-shaped region or for an immediate neighbor may be higher than the weights not in the same dimension or not an immediate neighbor.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the process of determining a context model (see Seregin paragraphs 204-208).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of He and Chiang does not explicitly teach the context calculations as needed for the limitations of claim 5.
Seregin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: obtaining a context as a weighted combination of context coefficients of the quantized transform coefficient, wherein the context coefficients include a first context coefficient that is an immediate neighbor of the quantized transform coefficient in wavefront scan order and a second context coefficient that is not an immediate neighbor, and a first weight used with the first context coefficient is larger than a second weight used with the second context coefficient (see Seregin paragraphs 204-208 and figure 15 regarding allocating different weights to different locations when determining the context while using coefficients, where closer locations receive a larger weight- in combination with He, the weights along the same dimension in the flipped L-shaped region or for an immediate neighbor may be higher than the weights not in the same dimension or not an immediate neighbor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of He and Chiang to include the teaching of Seregin so that in combination with He, the weights along the same dimension in the flipped L-shaped region or for an immediate neighbor may be higher than the weights not in the same dimension or not an immediate neighbor.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the process of determining a context model (see Seregin paragraphs 204-208).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of He and Chiang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of He and Chiang does not explicitly teach the context calculations as needed for the limitations of claim 6.
Seregin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the quantized transform coefficient is located on a diagonal of the quantized transform block, and the method further comprising: obtaining a context as a sum of context coefficients of the quantized transform coefficient (see Seregin paragraph 148 regarding determining context based on a sum of context coefficients- in combination with He, which teaches the diagonal as the start location, the context may be obtained as a sum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of He and Chiang to include the teaching of Seregin so that in combination with He, which teaches the diagonal as the start location, the context may be obtained as a sum.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve the process of determining a context model (see Seregin paragraphs 204-208).
Dependent claim(s) 10, 12-13, 17, and 19-20 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 3 and 5-6 and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights