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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/147,829 filed on 07/14/2025.
Claims 1 – 15 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “A computer readable recoding medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, wherein the image encoding method comprising”. Claim 15 is directed computer readable recoding medium storing a bitstream clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is processed or generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming/ instructions, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight.
The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim should instead be recited as “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program and bitstream, wherein when executed by a processor, the computer program causes the processor to process the bitstream generated by an image encoding method comprising… ”.
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 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.
Claim 1 – 4, 7 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluri et al. (WO 2020060366 A1) in view of George et al. (US 2016/0360204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paluri discloses: “a method of decoding an image [see para: 19; a decoding apparatus in which decoding of a video/image signal is performed], the method comprising:
obtaining a motion vector difference value of a current block [see para: 51; FIG. 44 is a diagram illustrating a method of deriving motion vector difference information according to an embodiment to which the present disclosure is applied];
obtaining a motion vector of the current block based on the motion vector difference value [see para: 164; In the motion vector prediction (MVP) mode, a motion vector of the selected neighboring block may be used as a motion vector predictor, and a motion vector difference may be signaled. In this case, the motion vector of the current block may be derived using the sum of the motion vector predictor and the motion vector difference]; and
obtaining a prediction sample for the current block based on the motion vector [see para: 97; The inter predictor 260 May derive a predicted block for the current block based on a reference block (a reference sample array) specified by the motion vector on the reference picture],
Paluri does not explicitly disclose: “wherein a current motion vector difference value is obtained based on information representing whether a prediction value for an empty bin in a bin string corresponding to the motion vector difference value is correct”.
However, George, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein a current motion vector difference value is obtained based on information representing whether a prediction value for an empty bin in a bin string corresponding to the motion vector difference value is correct [see para: 0088; In a further embodiment of the invention, the bin buffer selector 318 determines the output bin value 326 based on the input bin value 325 and the identifier, specifying an estimate for which of the two possible bin values represents the less probable or more probable bin value for the current bin request, that is associated with the request for a bin 317. In an embodiment of the invention, the output bin value 326 is set equal to the input bin value 325 if the identifier specifies that the first of the two possible bin values represents the less probable (or more probable) bin value for the current bin request, and the output bin value 326 is modified (i.e., it is set to the opposite of the input bin value) if identifier specifies that the second of the two possible bin values represents the less probable (or more probable) bin value for the current bin request. And see para: 0082 - 0087].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of a video signal based on inter prediction system disclosed by Paluri to add the teachings of George as above, in order to provide a means for improving by reducing the number of bypass-coded bits and shifts one or more bits into context-coded form, the encoder and decoder each generate candidate motion-vector differences by assigning possible values to an empty bin position and derive corresponding reference templates [George see para: 0088].
Regarding claim 2, Paluri and George disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Paluri does not explicitly disclose: “wherein bins excluding the empty bin in the bin string is decoded without using probability information”.
However, George, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein bins excluding the empty bin in the bin string is decoded without using probability information [see para: 0075; In a further embodiment of the invention, the bin encoders 310—or one or more of the bin encoders—represent entropy encoders that directly map variable-length sequences of input bins 309 onto fixed-length codewords 310. In a further embodiment of the invention, the bin encoders 310—or one or more of the bin encoders—represent entropy encoders that directly map fixed-length sequences of input bins 309 onto variable-length codewords 310. And see para: 0096].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of a video signal based on inter prediction system disclosed by Paluri to add the teachings of George as above, in order to provide a means for improving by reducing the number of bypass-coded bits and shifts one or more bits into context-coded form, the encoder and decoder each generate candidate motion-vector differences by assigning possible values to an empty bin position and excluding the empty bin in the bin string is decoded without using probability information [George see para: 0075].
Regarding claim 3, Paluri and George disclose all the limitation of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Paluri does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the information representing whether the prediction value for the empty bin is correct is decoded by using the probability information”.
However, George, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the information representing whether the prediction value for the empty bin is correct is decoded by using the probability information [see para: 0081; The parameter assigner 316 may determine one or more of the above mentioned probability measures (measure for an estimate of the probability for one of the two possible bin values for the current requested bin, measure for an estimate of the probability for the less probable or more probable bin value for the current requested bin, identifier specifying an estimate for which of the two possible bin values represents the less probable or more probable bin value for the current requested bin) based on a set of one or more already decoded symbols. The determination of the probability measures for a particular request for a bin replicates the process at the encoder for the corresponding bin].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of a video signal based on inter prediction system disclosed by Paluri to add the teachings of George as above, in order to provide a means for improving by reducing the number of bypass-coded bits and shifts one or more bits into context-coded form, the encoder and decoder each generate candidate motion-vector differences by assigning possible values to an empty bin position and determine the prediction value for the empty bin is correct which is decoded by using the probability information [George see para: 0081].
Regarding claim 4, Paluri and George disclose all the limitation of claim 3 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Paluri does not explicitly disclose: “wherein an occurrence probability of a value representing that the prediction value is correct is higher than an occurrence probability of a value representing that the prediction value is not correct”.
However, George, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein an occurrence probability of a value representing that the prediction value is correct is higher than an occurrence probability of a value representing that the prediction value is not correct [see para: 0048; The prediction is performed by predictor 106. Subtractor 108 subtracts the prediction from such a original block and the transform stage 100 performs a two-dimensional transformation on the prediction residuals. The two-dimensional transformation itself or a subsequent measure inside transform stage 100 may lead to a quantization of the transformation coefficients within the transform coefficient blocks. The quantized transform coefficient blocks are losslessly coded by, for example, entropy encoding within entropy encoder 102 with the resulting data stream being output at output 114. The inverse transform stage 104 reconstructs the quantized residual and adder 110, in turn, combines the reconstructed residual with the corresponding prediction in order to obtain reconstructed information samples based on which predictor 106 may predict the afore-mentioned currently encoded prediction blocks. Predictor 106 may use different prediction modes such as intra prediction modes and inter prediction modes in order to predict the blocks and the prediction parameters are forwarded to entropy encoder 102 for insertion into the data stream. For each inter-predicted prediction block, respective motion data is inserted into the bitstream via entropy encoder 114 in order to enable the decoding side to redo the prediction. The motion data for a prediction block of a picture may involve a syntax portion including a syntax element representing a motion vector difference differentially coding the motion vector for the current prediction block relative to a motion vector predictor derived, for example, by way of a prescribed method from the motion vectors of neighboring already encoded prediction blocks].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of a video signal based on inter prediction system disclosed by Paluri to add the teachings of George as above, in order to provide a means for improving by reducing the number of bypass-coded bits and shifts one or more bits into context-coded form, the encoder and decoder each generate candidate motion-vector differences by assigning possible values to an empty bin position and determine the prediction value for the empty bin is correct or not, which is decoded by probability information [George see para: 0081].
Regarding claim 7, Paluri and George disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Paluri does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the empty bin corresponds to a position of a least significant bit (LSB) or a most significant bit (MSB) of the bin string”.
However, George, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the empty bin corresponds to a position of a least significant bit (LSB) or a most significant bit (MSB) of the bin string [see para: 0224; The first and the second level are stored in a single 8 bit memory. 4 bits are necessitated to store the first level—an index that defines the PIPE index with the value of the MPS on the most significant bit- and another 4 bits are used to store the second level. To implement the behaviour of the CABAC probability estimator, each PIPE index has a particular number of allowed refinement indices depending on how many CABAC states were mapped on the PIPE index. E.g. for the mapping in Table A, the number of CABAC states per PIPE index is depicted in Table B].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of a video signal based on inter prediction system disclosed by Paluri to add the teachings of George as above, in order to provide a means for improving by reducing the number of bypass-coded bits and shifts one or more bits into context-coded form, the encoder and decoder each generate candidate motion-vector differences by assigning possible values to an empty bin position and MSB or LSB bits will be used [George see para: 0224].
Regarding claim 11 and 15, claim 11 and 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8 – 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 2015/0341637 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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 J. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights