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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Application 63/637,216 filed April 22nd, 2024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 9, 11, and 14 – 15 to address 112(b) Rejections.
The pending claims are 1 – 15 [Section I: Page 7 lines 1 – 14].
Applicant amends the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejection [Section II: Page 7 lines 15 – 28]. The Examiner reconsiders the Rejection in view of the amended claims.
Applicant does not comment on Examiner’s Functional Analysis. The Examiner removes the section in view of the apparent agreement the claims do NOT invoke Functional Analysis.
Applicant's arguments filed July 8th, 2026 [Section III: Page 8 line 1 – Page 12 line 2] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner Notes: 1) Arguments in Section II are answered; 2) Tables, reproduced sections from references / previous Office Actions and their captions are not counted in the line counts provided.
First, the Applicant recites the reference against the claims [Page 8 lines 1 – 4] and comments on the public availability of US Provisional References [Page 8 lines 5 – 10]. In the sole interest to expedite prosecution, the US Provisional references in Hooda that predate this Application’s effective filing date are attached.
Second, the Applicant contends the type of lifting transform syntax element (first syntax element) and the second syntax element regarding enabling a lifting offset are not taught or rendered obvious by Hooda [Page 8 lines 11 – 20].
Third, the Applicant reproduces Hooda Paragraphs 199 and 200 and contends the code segment is different from Table 1 in the pending Specification [Page 8 line 21 – Page 10 line 2] and contends rewriting code is not obvious alleging hindsight reasoning [Page 10 lines 4 – 27]. However, Applicant does not appreciate Hooda as a whole in which Paragraphs 200 shows the first syntax element and then enables signaling / reading various parameters (“vdmc_lifting_transform_parameters”) which includes the second syntax element (e.g. vltp_lifting_offset_flag” which enables / disables offsets if the transform is enabled first) as a second parameter or obvious variant of the second parameter as the parameter is applied per level of detail as claimed when all citations of Hooda are considered..
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific use of the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element as the second syntax element [Page 10 lines 4 – 16]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning [Page 10 lines 17 – 27], it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Fourth, the Applicant concludes the claims are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 11 line 28 -Page 12 line 2].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood; the Examiner respectfully disagrees and thus the Rejection has been maintained.
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 § 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 (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.
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.
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(s) 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooda, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0330641 A1 referred to as “Hooda” throughout where citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Application 63/635,968).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 6 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 8 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 4, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 5, see claim 10 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 6, Hooda teaches
a processor [Hooda Paragraphs 49 (processors to implement encoder / decoder), 241, and 267 – 270 (processors and memories to execute programs / functions of encoders / decoders)]; and
a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to [Hooda Paragraphs 49 (processors to implement encoder / decoder with memory / instructions), 241, and 267 – 270 (processors and memories to execute programs / functions of encoders / decoders)]:
decode a first syntax element to determine which type of lifting transform is enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which linear lifting transform is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included)];
in response to a linear lifting transform being enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included where “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type tested for comparison)], decode a second syntax element to determine whether a lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information)]; and
in response to the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values being enabled, for a level-of-detail [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where the test is done which is for all level of details rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)],
decode a third syntax element to determine a lifting off set numerator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_num” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_num” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)];
decode a fourth syntax element to determine a lifting off set denominator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_denom_minus1” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_denom_minus1” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)]; and
decode a bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 232 – 240 (decoding meshes with the offsets (represented fractionally in Paragraphs 248 and 258) to the lifting transform signaled)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Hooda teaches
the first syntax element indicates which type of lifting transform is enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 7 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included where “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type tested for comparison)],
the second syntax element indicates whether a lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information)],
the third syntax element indicates the lifting off set numerator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_num” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_num” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)], and
the fourth syntax element indicates the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_denom_minus1” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_denom_minus1” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to the linear lifting transform being enabled [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], to decode the second syntax element to determine whether the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], the memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to [See Claim 6 “memory” and “processor” limitations for citations]:
in response to the second syntax element having a first value, determine the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a non-zero value would enable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a non-zero value would enable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to the linear lifting transform being enabled [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], to decode the second syntax element to determine whether the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], the memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to [See Claim 6 “memory” and “processor” limitations for citations]:
in response to the second syntax element having a second value different than the first value, determine the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is not enabled [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a zero value would disable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a zero value would disable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values being enabled, for the level-of-detail [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], to decode the bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [See claim 6 for citations of same / similar limitation], the memory storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to [See Claim 6 “memory” and “processor” limitations for citations]:
decode a base-mesh displacement from the bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 3 (decoder), 6 – 8 (details of decoding see at least reference characters 706, 708, 710 and 711 (encoder side) and 822, 823, and 824 (decoder side)), and 13 – 15 (methods of decoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 95 – 97 and 106 – 114 (decoding base mesh with bias / offset values signaled as fractions) and 231 – 240 (decoding meshes with the offsets (represented fractionally in Paragraphs 248 and 258) to the lifting transform signaled)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Hooda teaches
encoding [Hooda Paragraphs 49 (processors to implement encoder / decoder), 241, and 267 – 270 (processors and memories to execute programs / functions of encoders / decoders) where this citation is used for the claimed “processor” throughout the Rejection of claims 11 – 15)], a first syntax element to determine which type of lifting transform is enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which linear lifting transform is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included)];
in response to a linear lifting transform being enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included where “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which a value tested for is “LINEAR_LIFTING” is a transform type tested for comparison)], encoding a second syntax element to determine whether a lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information)]; and
in response to the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values being enabled, for a level-of-detail [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where the test is done which is for all level of details rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)],
encoding a third syntax element to determine a lifting offset numerator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_num” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_num” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)];
encoding a fourth syntax element to determine a lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_denom_minus1” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_denom_minus1” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)]; and
encoding a bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 228 – 233 (encoding meshes with the offsets (represented fractionally in Paragraphs 248 and 258) to the lifting transform signaled)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Hooda teaches
the first syntax element indicates which type of lifting transform is enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_method” or “mdu_transform_method” syntax element in which linear lifting transform is a transform type such as those taught in Paragraph 121 (wavelet and linear wavelet transforms)) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included)],
the second syntax element indicates whether a lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information)],
the third syntax element indicates the lifting off set numerator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_num” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_num” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)], and
the fourth syntax element indicates the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 208 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “imdu_lifting_offset_denom_minus1” syntax element rendering the claim limitation obvious) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_values_denom_minus1” syntax element in which the index ltpindex indicates the level of detail for the use of the use of offsets for the linear transform)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to a linear lifting transform being enabled [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation], the encoding the second syntax element to determine whether the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation] comprises:
in response to the second syntax element having a first value, determining the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values is enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a non-zero value would enable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a non-zero value would enable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to the linear lifting transform being enabled [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation], the encoding the second syntax element to determine whether the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is enabled [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation] comprises:
in response to the second syntax element having a second value different than the first value, determining the lifting offset applied to lifting transform values is not enabled [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 200 – 206 (Tables and code segments included and see at least the “avse_lifting_offset_flag” syntax element in to signal the use of offset parameters for linear lifting transforms where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a zero value would disable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201) and 212 – 220 (Tables / code included and see at least the “vltp_lifting_offset_flag”, “mdu_transform_parameters_override_flag” or the “asve_lifting_offset_flag” as syntax to control using additional lifting transform parameters which include offset information where one of ordinary skill in the art understands a zero value would disable the use of offsets in the IF statement checking the value of the flag as taught in Paragraph 201)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Hooda teaches
wherein, in response to the lifting offset applied to the lifting transform values being enabled, for the level-of-detail [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation], the encoding the bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [See claim 11 for citations of the same / similar limitation] comprises:
encoding a base-mesh displacement from the bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding see at least reference characters 706, 708, 710 and 711 (encoder side) and 822, 823, and 824 (decoder side)), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 95 – 97 and 106 – 114 (decoding base mesh with bias / offset values signaled as fractions) and 228 – 233 (encoding meshes with the offsets (represented fractionally in Paragraphs 248 and 258) to the lifting transform signaled)].
decode a base-mesh displacement from the bitstream based on the lifting offset numerator value and the lifting offset denominator value [Hooda Figure 2 (encoder), 6 – 8 (details of encoding see at least reference characters 706, 708, 710 and 711 (encoder side) and 822, 823, and 824 (decoder side)), and 12 – 15 (methods of encoding / processing syntax claimed) as well as Paragraphs 55 – 60 (base mesh encoder to be modified by bias / offset adjustments to lifting transform), 68 – 73, 95 – 98 and 103 – 107 (encoding base mesh with bias / offset values signaled as fractions) and 228 – 240 (encoding meshes with the offsets (represented fractionally in Paragraphs 248 and 258) to the lifting transform signaled)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the various embodiments and different syntax elements as taught by Hooda to be within the scope of the claimed invention as the arrangement of the code, syntax labels, and semantics / implementation (e.g. use of vectors / arrays) to be obvious variants of the features claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hooda, et al (US PG PUB 2025/0119581 A1 referred to as “Hooda 81” throughout) with similar teachings of Hooda but without clear teaching of the claimed syntax elements for the numerator and denominator of the offset.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights