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 (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claimss10-13 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
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) 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by T. Wiegand, H. Schwarz, A. Joch, F. Kossentini and G. J. Sullivan, "Rate-constrained coder control and comparison of video coding standards," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 688-703, July 2003, doi: 10.1109/TCSVT.2003.815168. referred to as WIEGAND hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, WIEGAND shows a method for processing video data, comprising:
determining to predict a value of at least one residual coefficient based on a cost (Page 693, top left side describes wherein cost criterion is utilized for prediction prior to residual coding.);
and performing a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video based on the value of the at least one residual coefficient (Page 693 specifically and the entire paper discloses coding, which is the foundational operation of converting a video into a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 2, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the at least one residual coefficient is used in transform coding (Page 688, section II, discloses transform coding.).
Regarding claim 3, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein N coefficients at positions p1, p2, . . . pN are predicted, wherein p1, p2, . . . pN are non-negative numbers (Page 691, left-hand column, 2nd paragraph describes wherein the coefficients are predicted by referring to their neighboring samples of already coded blocks, which assumes a p1, p2…pN ordering.).
Regarding claim 4, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein prediction of a coefficient depends on coding information, and the coding information comprises at least one of: a partial value of a reconstructed coefficient; a parity; surrounding neighboring values; a block size; a prediction mode used for a block, which depends on whether the block is inter coded or intra coded, depends on an intra direction value, or depends on a type of an inter prediction used for the block; multiple transform selection (MTS) index values; Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST) index values; a block partitioning type; a transform skip flag; a quantization parameter (QP); color components, or a color format (Page 689, left-hand column, 2nd paragraph discloses a majority of the above modes for predictions.).
Regarding claim 5, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein information related to a value of a coefficient is derived from a cost derivation process (Section III-A, pp. 692-693; Section III-B, p. 693; Section IV, pp. 694-699);
wherein a full coefficient is derived from the cost derivation process (Section III-B, p. 693 left column), wherein a prediction of a coefficient is derived from the cost derivation process and the coefficient is added by the prediction to obtain a final coefficient (Section III-B, p. 693; Section II, pp. 689-692, while not expressly describing additive coefficient prediction for residual coefficients, it does disclose cost-based derivation of coefficient values. Further, as the remaining limitations are recited in the alternative, they will not be addressed.);
Regarding claim 6, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein derived information related to a prediction value is from a set of values; wherein the prediction value is predicted from 0 and C, a value of a final coefficient is X or X+C, where C is an integer, X is a partially coded coefficient, or wherein the prediction value is not signaled, depending on predicting to 0 or C, a value of a final coefficient is X or X+C, where C is an integer, X is a partially coded coefficient, or wherein a flag is coded to indicate whether the predication value of 0 or C is correct or not, when the prediction value of 0 is incorrect, an opposite value of C is added to X, and when the prediction value of C is incorrect, an opposite value of 0 is added to X, or wherein two or more prediction values are included in one set, or wherein each set of N sets of values includes M_i candidates, for i from 1 to N, and the N sets are implicitly derived based on surrounding information or signaled explicitly, wherein N is a positive integer, and M_i is a positive integer, or wherein a best prediction value of M possible prediction value(s) is added to X to create a final coefficient of X+vK, without any signaling, wherein X is a partially coded coefficient, M is a positive integer, vK denotes the best prediction value, 1<=K<=M, or wherein all M possible prediction value(s) is sorted based on a predefined cost and an index is signaled to indicate a correct prediction value, M is a positive integer (Section III-B, p. 693; Section III-C, pp. 693-694 teaches selecting among coding options / parameter values via cost minimization. It does not disclose the exact 0/C or sorted-prediction framework, but under BRI the cost-based choice among alternatives is equivalent.), or wherein a prediction derivation process is applied after dependent quantization and/or rate distortion optimization quantization (RDOQ) is complete or simultaneously with a process of the dependent quantization and/or a process of the RDOQ (Section III-B, p. 693; Section IV, pp. 694-699 uses RD optimization in the encoder and quantization as part of the coding loop.), or wherein predefined prediction values are not constant, or wherein a predefined prediction value is a function of surrounding coefficient values (Section II, pp. 689-692; Section III, pp. 692-694).
Regarding claim 7, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein an actual prediction value is used to code a coefficient value remainder (Section III-B, p. 693; Section II, pp. 689-692);
wherein an accurate prediction denoted by P is derived on both an encoder side and a decoder side, wherein X=coeff−P is coded at the encoder side, the X is decoded at the decoder side and is added with P to obtain a final coefficient value, or wherein a prediction derivation process is applied after dependent quantization and/or rate distortion optimization quantization (RDOQ) is complete (Section III-B, p. 693; Section IV, pp. 694-699 discusses optimization around quantization and coding choices. Further, as the remaining limitations are recited in the alternative, they will not be addressed.).
Regarding claim 8, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein a partial prediction value is used to predict a part of a coefficient (Section III-B, p. 693; Section II.C-D, pp. 690-692 discusses using partial coding concepts. Further, as the remaining limitations of this claim are stated in the alternative, they do not need to be addressed.).
Regarding claim 9, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein a cost for evaluating a coefficient value hypothesis or prediction is a function of at least one neighboring sample (Section III-B, p. 693; Section III-C, pp. 693-694.), or wherein a cost is calculated as a difference between a partial reconstruction of border samples in a current block and a corresponding reference, the corresponding reference is derived from neighboring block reconstruction (Section II, pp. 689-692; Section III-B, p. 693 the paper does discuss reconstruction and prediction in block-based coding generally. Further, as the remaining limitations are recited in the alternative, they will not be addressed.).
Regarding claim 17, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Page 688, Introduction).
Regarding claim 18, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Page 688, Introduction).
Regarding claim 19, WIEGAND shows an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine to predict a value of at least one residual coefficient based on a cost; and perform a conversion between a video and a bitstream of the video based on the value of the at least one residual coefficient (Appendix I, pp. 701-702; Section IV, pp. 694-699 and similar to the teachings of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 20, a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 18 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by WIEGAND which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Appendix I, pp. 701-702; Section IV, pp. 694-699).
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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEIGAND in view of Zhao et al., (US 2023/0421754 A1) referred to as ZHAO hereinafter.
Regarding claim 15, WIEGAND shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but ZHAO does specifically show wherein any combination of sign prediction and coefficient value prediction for candidates is applied (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], [0046]-[0052], [0079]-[0091] wherein sign prediction and coefficient value prediction is clearly applied. Further, as the remaining limitations are recited in the alternative, they will not be addressed.).
Both WEIGAND and ZHAO are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WIEGAND in the spirit of ZHAO because ZHAO further narrows the prediction to selected coefficients, such as low-frequency coefficients or coefficients in forward scan order, to improve practicality. ([0031]-[0033], [0050]-[0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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. Please see the Notice of References Cited form (PTO-892) for additional references discovered but not relied upon in this Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights