DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 21,26-28,30,37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409689).
Regarding claim 21, Hendry discloses an apparatus, comprising; at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to; identify a gradual decoder refresh (GDR) picture within a gradual decoder refresh period of a sequence of pictures (e.g., figs. 1-3,8-11, abstract, paragraphs 0004-0016,0018-0019,0112,0114-0115,0124,0129,etc.), wherein the gradual decoder refresh picture is a first picture within the gradual decoder refresh period of the sequence of pictures (e.g., paragraphs 0011,
0021,0115,0120,0124,0129,0187,etc.), and perform context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding initialization to determine at least one context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding state (e.g., entropy coding unit, as shown in figs. 1-3, also abstract, paragraphs 0072,0475), and use the at least one context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding state for one of encoding or decoding the gradual decoder refresh picture (e.g., figs. 1-3,8-9, abstract, paragraphs 0004-0005,0011-0012,0018-0022,0072,etc.).
Regarding claim 26, Hendry discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions is executed by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: after one of encoding or decoding the gradual decoder refresh picture, store or update at least one context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding state (e.g., figs. 1-3 and 11, paragraph 0018,0029,etc.).
Regarding claim 27, Hendry discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the storing or updating the at least one context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding state is performed after the coding of the gradual decoder refresh picture (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0004-0009,0011-0018,0072, etc.).
Regarding claim 28, Hendry discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the gradual decoder refresh picture is of at least one of a type B picture or type P picture (e.g., paragraphs 0077,0155).
Regarding claim 30, Hendry discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the sequence of pictures comprises at least one of a gradual decoder refresh picture, a recovering picture, or an intra random access point picture (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0002,0005,0011-0012, etc.).
Regarding claims 37 and 40, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 21 above and have been addressed in the above claim. It is noted that the gradual decoding refresh in video coding as disclosed by the reference, is a computer implemented process, therefore, the software and/or instruction would have been necessitated by the process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 22 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409689) in view of Hendry et al. (US 2022/0217416).
Regarding claim 22, Hendry‘689, teaches the apparatus of claim 21, including gradual decoder refresh period of the sequence of pictures comprise the gradual decoder refresh (GDR) picture, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Hendry may not clearly teach the claimed, and a plurality of associated recovering pictures.
However, Hendry’689, further teaches trailing pictures and recovery point pictures (e.g., paragraphs 0112-0115,0146-0147,0205,0221-0223,0460,0462, thus considered equivalent to the claimed limitation). For further clarification
Hendry’416, in the same field of endeavor more clearly teaches recovering pictures (e.g., The
pictures that are associated with the current GDR picture and have PicOrderCntVal less than recoveryPointPocVal are referred to as the recovering pictures of the GDR picture, in paragraphs 0186-0187,0198-0199).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hendry’416, into the video gradual decoding refresh system of Hendry’689, in order to accurately determine starting point of the picture, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 38, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 22 above and have been addressed in the above claim.
8. Claims 23 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409689) in view of 15th meeting: Pattaya (improved CABAC, provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 23, Hendry teaches the apparatus of claim 21, including coded video bitstream containing a gradual decoding refresh (GDR) flag corresponding to a coded video sequence, determining by the video decoder, whether a GDR picture is present, also wherein the context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding is coding for data compression (e.g., figs. 1-3, abstract, paragraphs 0011-0012,0018,
0072, etc.).
Hendry, is silent to explicitly teach, a sequence level flag may indicate if inter pictures are allowed to inherit context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states from previously coded inter pictures.
Pattaya, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., introduction and section 2.3) teaches “In the current TML, pre-computed start distributions are used for initialization of the statistical models at the beginning of each frame/slice. This enables the decoder to resynchronize in the case where a frame/slice or parts of it are lost. However, for applications where no transmission errors happen, we propose to introduce an init_flag on frame or sequence level, indicating whether the fixed start distribution is used (init_flag ON) or the distribution is gathered on previously en-/decoded frames/slices (init_flag OFF)” thus considered equivalent to the above claimed limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Pattaya, into the video gradual decoding refresh system of Hendry, in order to improve the coding performance of CABAC, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 39, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 23 above and have been addressed in the above claim.
9. Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409689) in view of He et al. (EP 2945383, provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 29, Hendry teaches the apparatus of claim 28, including context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Hendry is silent to explicitly teach wherein a separate context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table is maintained for each inter type B picture or inter type P picture.
He, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraph 0004) teaches information from which the initial state values of those adaptively initialized context may be derived. MARPE et al.: "Slice initialization of CABAC", 3. JVT MEETING; 06-05-2002 - 10-05-2002; FAIRFAX, US; (JOINT VIDEO TEAM OF ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG.16), JVT-E154, 18 October 2002, discloses defining three different initialization tables for P and B-slices and selecting one table based on the adapted context states of a reference slice, thus considered equivalent to the above claimed limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Hendry and He teach the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the separate context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table comprises at least one entry (e.g., paragraph 0004 of He).
10. Claims 29,31-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendry et al. (US 2021/0409689) in view of Muhammed et al. (Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 7 (ECM 7), provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 29, Hendry teaches the apparatus of claim 28, including context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Hendry is silent to explicitly teach wherein a separate context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding
states table is maintained for each inter type B picture or inter type P picture.
Muhammed, in the same field of endeavor and throughout the disclosure (e.g., page 60, section, CABAC initialization from previous inter …, and also section 3.9, etc.) teaches, multiple tables including different CABAC states depending on slice type, temporal ID and QP are stored and a given table is stored for a given slice type with respective stored CABAC states ordered from lowest to highest temporal ID and QP, cf. the first typographic paragraph, and the first entry in the table is replaced
first, if the table is full) thus considered equivalent to the above limitation as claimed.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Hendry and Muhammed, teach the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the separate context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table comprises at least one entry (e.g., page 60, section, CABAC initialization from previous inter …, and also section 3.9, etc., as cited in claim 29 above).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Hendry and Muhammed, teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein each of the at least one entry of the separate context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table is associated with a unique pair of a temporal identification and a quantization parameter (Muhammed, e.g., page 60, section, CABAC initialization from previous inter …, and also section 3.9, etc., multiple tables including different CABAC states depending on slice type, temporal ID and QP are stored and a given table is stored for a given slice type with respective stored CABAC states ordered from lowest to highest temporal ID and QP …).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Hendry and Muhammed, teach the apparatus of claim
32, wherein the at least one entry is sorted first by the temporal identification and then by the Quantization parameter (Muhammed, e.g., page 60, section, CABAC initialization from previous inter …,
and section 3.9, etc., multiple tables including different CABAC states depending on slice type, temporal ID and QP are stored …).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Hendry and Muhammed, teach the apparatus of claim
33, wherein, after an inter picture with a temporal identification and a quantization parameter is coded, if no entry with same temporal identification and same quantization parameter is found in the context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table, CABAC states of the coded inter picture then replace a first entry of the context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table, wherein entries in the context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding states table are then sorted by temporal identification and quantization parameter (Muhammed, e.g., page 60, section, CABAC initialization from previous inter …, and also section 3.9, etc.) teaches, multiple tables including different CABAC states depending on slice type, temporal ID and QP are stored and a given table is stored for a given slice type with respective stored CABAC states ordered from lowest to highest temporal ID and QP, cf. the first typographic paragraph, and the first entry in the table is replaced first, if the table is full) thus considered equivalent to the above limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 36, Hendry teaches the apparatus of claim 21, including encoding and decoding to reconstruct GDR picture to be used as reference for at least one picture following the gradual decoder refresh picture.
Hendry, does not explicitly indicate, the encoding and decoding are synced to produce a same refreshed area in reconstructed GDR picture.
Muhammed, (e.g., fig. 52, page 60, sections CABAC initialization from previous inter …, and also section 3.9, etc.) teaches, standard design features relating to GDR pictures, for the syncing features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known design/teaching, which would be necessitated by the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 24-25 and 35 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.
Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights