DETAILED ACTION
1. The Office Action is in response to Application 19185697 filed on 04/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claim 1-8 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2 of US Patent US 12294705 and in view of Takeshi et al. (JP WO2009004985) indicated below.
For Claim 1-8, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they both are dealing with video decoding method/apparatus (device)/ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 1-8 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 1-2 of the reference patent except for the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern.
.
Current Application
US 12294705
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
decoding a gain index representing a magnitude of a residual block for a current block;
decoding a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a pattern of the residual block;
decoding the residual block based on the gain index and the shape index; and reconstructing the current block based on the residual block.
claim 3’s limitation:
decoding a sign bit value, wherein decoding the residual block is further based on the sign bit value..
Claim 4’s limitation:
multiplying a gain value, the unit-norm vector, and the sign bit value.
claim 5’s limitation:
selecting a gain value from a gain codebook using the gain index; and selecting the unit-norm vector from a shape codebook using the shape index.
claim 6’s limitation:
decoding a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization; and decoding the gain index and the shape index in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is encoded using vector quantization
claim 7’s limitation:
decoding a skip flag in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using vector quantization; and decoding the residual block based on the skip flag
claim 8’s limitation:
multiplying a gain value selected using the gain index by the unit-norm vector selected using the shape index to obtain the residual block
claim 2’s limitation:
the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern
Claim 1
An apparatus for decoding a current block of video, comprising: a memory; and a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
decode, from a compressed bitstream, a flag indicating whether a residual block for the current block is encoded using vector quantization (VQ); in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is encoded using VQ, execute instructions to:
decode a parameter indicating an entry in a codebook wherein to decode the parameter indicating the entry in the codebook comprises to:
decode a gain index identifying a gain scalar from a gain codebook, wherein the gain scalar represents a magnitude of the residual block;
decode a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector from a shape codebook, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a directional pattern of the residual block;
and decode a sign bit value; and decode the residual block using the entry,
wherein to decode the residual block comprises to: decode the residual block by multiplying the sign bit value, the gain scalar, and the unit-norm vector;
in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using VQ, execute instructions to:
decode the residual block based on a skip flag indicating whether the current block is encoded using transform skip; and reconstruct the current block using the residual block
claim 1’s limitation:
and decode a sign bit value; and decode the residual block using the entry,
claim 1’s limitation:
decode the residual block by multiplying the sign bit value, the gain scalar, and the unit-norm vector;
claim 2’s limitation:
select, using the gain index, a gain value from the gain codebook; and select, using the shape index, a shape vector from the shape codebook.
claim 1’s limitation:
decode, from a compressed bitstream, a flag indicating whether a residual block for the current block is encoded using vector quantization (VQ); in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is encoded using VQ, execute instructions to:
….
decode a gain index identifying a gain scalar from a gain codebook, wherein the gain scalar represents a magnitude of the residual block;
decode a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector from a shape codebook, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a directional pattern of the residual block;
claim 1’s limitation:
in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using VQ, execute instructions to: decode the residual block based on a skip flag indicating whether the current block is encoded using transform skip; and reconstruct the current block using the residual block
claim 1’s limitation:
decode a gain index identifying a gain scalar from a gain codebook, wherein the gain scalar represents a magnitude of the residual block; decode a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector from a shape codebook, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a directional pattern of the residual block
…
decode the residual block by multiplying the sign bit value, the gain scalar, and the unit-norm vector
Claim 1-2 of US Patent US 12294705 does not disclose explicitly the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern.
Takeshi discloses the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern (fig. 67, (b); page 125, … obtains prediction residual data from the image of a vertical stripe pattern, (b) is a prediction residual from the image of a diagonal stripe pattern).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern as a modification to the claim 1-2 of US Patent US 12294705 for the benefit of that achieves high efficiency video coding (see page 125).
7. Claim 9-16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable claim 1-2 of US Patent US 12294705 and in view of Takeshi et al. (JP WO2009004985) for the similar reason as for claim 1-8.
8. Similarly, Claim 17-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2 of US Patent US 12294705.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-9,.11-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (WO 2017133753) and in view of ROSEWARNE et al. (AU 2019203981) and further in view of Jean-Marc et al. (Perceptual Vector Quantization for Video Coding ), 2014-2015).
Regarding claim 9, ZHAO teaches a device (fig. 8), comprising:
a processor (fig. 8, 805), the processor configured to execute instructions to (page 11, … the functions of the decoder according to the third aspect and any functions of any of their implementation forms may be performed by a processor or a computer, and any of their means may be implemented as software and/or hardware in such a processor or computer):
decoding the residual block (fig. 8, 809 using inter prediction which has the residual block and it uses entry from 804, codebook generation to decode the residual block; page 2, … the residual data of intra- or inter-frame prediction, which is the prediction
error or difference between the original frame or block and its prediction, is spatially
transformed… VQ in HEVC as a second-order prediction method to further reduce the remaining correlation in the residual of intra prediction);
and reconstructing the current block based on the residual block (fig. 1, reconstructed signal; page 15, …. the prediction unit 108, 109 is configured to generate, for each coding block of the training frames, the predicted signal S"k from a reconstructed signal S'k The reconstructed signal S\ is obtained by combining the predicted signal S"k and the reconstructed prediction error e'k by means of unit 107; as explained, the prediction causes the residual block).
It is noticed that ZHAO does not disclose explicitly of decoding a gain index representing a magnitude of a residual block for a current block.
ROSEWARNE discloses of decoding a gain index representing a magnitude of a residual block for a current block (the magnitude of a residual block is shown in fig. 9D, each position of an element in the block is interpreted as the gain index; paragraph 0137, … Fig. 9D shows the residual coefficient magnitudes… The residual coefficients 990 are shown with sign and magnitude; the decoding process is shown in fig. 4, 420/436 and 444).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that decoding a gain index representing a magnitude of a residual block for a current block as a modification to the device for the benefit of that effectively decoding the block (paragraph 0136-0137).
It is noticed that ZHAO does not disclose explicitly of decoding a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a pattern of the residual block.
Jean-Marc discloses of decoding a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a pattern of the residual block (fig. 2; page 3, section 3, Prediction, equation (4), in which, the r/[r] /em is the unit-norm vector with shape index, since each vector has a index; page 3, …. Subtract the prediction from the coefficients being coded, and then apply gain-shape quantization to the residual (i.e., residual block which has a pattern)…. We compute the transform using a Householder reflection, which is also computationally cheaper than codebook warping. The Householder reflection constructs a reflection plane that turns the prediction into a vector with only one non-zero component. Let r be the vector containing the prediction coefficients. The Householder reflection is defined by a vector that is normal to the reflection plane….where em is a unit vector along axis m, s = sign (rm) and axis m is selected…The decoder can compute both values).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that decoding a shape index identifying a unit-norm vector, wherein the unit-norm vector represents a pattern of the residual block as a modification to the device for the benefit of that of gain-shape quantization (page 3).
Regarding claim 1, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 9.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, ROSEWARNE further discloses that decoding a sign bit value, wherein decoding the residual block is further based on the sign bit value (fig. 9D, in which, each element in the residual block has sign and it is decoded as shown in fig. 4; paragraph 0137, … Fig. 9D shows the residual coefficient magnitudes… The residual coefficients 990 are shown with sign and magnitude);
The motivation of combination the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Jean-Marc further discloses that multiplying a gain value, the unit-norm vector, and the sign bit value (page 3, section 3, equation (4), in which, a gain value is 1 and em is the unit vector and s is the sign, …. where em is a unit vector along axis m, s = sign (rm) and axis m is selected based on the largest component of the
prediction, to minimize numerical error).
The motivation of combination the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Jean-Marc further discloses that selecting a gain value from a gain codebook using the gain index (page 2, section 2, Gain-Shape Quantization, … Each possible vector is called a codeword and the set of all possible
codewords is called a codebook… The gain (the length) is a scalar that represents how much energy is in the vector; in which, gain value is selected from a gain codebook using index since the length of each vector is different and the index is used to distinguish them) and selecting the unit-norm vector from a shape codebook using the shape index (page 2, section 2, Gain-Shape Quantization, equation (1) and (2), … we use a normalized version of the pyramid vector quantizer described by Fischer for the shape codebook. Fischer’s codebook is defined as the set of all N-dimensional vectors of integers where the absolute value of the integers sum to K…The normalized version of the codebook (i.e. unit vector) simply normalizes each vector to have a length of 1. If y is a codeword in Fischer’s non-normalized codebook, then the corresponding normalized vector is simply….);
The motivation of combination the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, ZHAO further discloses that decoding a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization (page 28-29, … a syntax or side information to indicate where the vector quantization is used may be given in PPS, and/or SPS, and/or coding block level and/or below coding block level; in which, the syntax is decoded in decoder);
ROSEWARNE further discloses that decoding the gain index (paragraph 0137, … Fig. 9D shows the residual coefficient magnitudes… The residual coefficients 990 are shown with sign and magnitude; in which, each element in fig. 9D has a gain index; the decoding process is shown in fig. 4, 436 and 444);
Jean-Marc further discloses that decode the shape index in response to the residual block is encoded using vector quantization (fig. 2; page 1, …using gain-shape vector quantization
to encode a vector of AC coefficients as a length (gain) and direction (shape); page 3, section 3, Prediction, equation (4), in which, the r/[r] is the unit-norm vector with shape index, since each vector has a index; page 3, …. Subtract the prediction from the coefficients being coded, and then apply gain-shape quantization to the residual…. We compute the transform using a Householder reflection, which is also computationally cheaper than codebook warping. The Householder reflection constructs a reflection plane that turns the prediction into a vector with only one non-zero component. Let r be the vector containing the prediction coefficients. The Householder reflection is defined by a vector that is normal to the reflection plane).
The motivation of combination the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, ZHAO further discloses that decoding a skip flag in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using vector quantization (page 5, … The scalar quantization unit in fact may be configured to perform either a transform plus scalar quantization or a transform skip plus scalar quantization; in which, when a scaler quantization is used, it is known that the residual block is not encoded using vector quantization, as shown in fig. 3; the skip used a syntax/flag, as suggested in page 31, … The syntaxes for skip flag); and decoding the residual block based on the skip flag (fig. 4 shown the decoding process and it is based on the skip flag).
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Jean-Marc further discloses that multiplying a gain value selected using the gain index by the unit-norm vector selected using the shape index to obtain the residual block (page 3-4, section 3, Prediction, equation (7), in which, ^g is a gain value selected using the gain index and em the unit-norm vector selected using the shape index , … apply gain-shape quantization to the residual… ^g is the reconstructed (quantized) gain… where em is a unit vector along axis m…).
The motivation of combination the same as in claim 1’s rejection.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 8.
11. Claims 2, 10 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (WO 2017133753) and in view of ROSEWARNE et al. (AU 2019203981) and further in view of Jean-Marc et al. (Perceptual Vector Quantization for Video Coding ), 2014-2015) and further in view of Takeshi et al. (JP WO2009004985).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of ZHAO, ROSEWARNE and Jean-Marc teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
It is noticed that ZHAO does not disclose explicitly of the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern.
Takeshi discloses of the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern (pattern (fig. 67, (b); page 125, … obtains prediction residual data from the image of a vertical stripe pattern, (b) is a prediction residual from the image of a diagonal stripe pattern).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the pattern comprises a diagonal pattern as a modification to the apparatus for the benefit of that achieves high efficiency video coding (see page 125).
Claim 10 is rejected for the similar reason as for claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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 (pre-AIA ), 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.
12. Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1, it recites limitations of “a magnitude of a residual block” in “decoding a gain index representing a magnitude of a residual block for a current block”; However, it is not clear the magnitude is a magnitude of the whole residual block (if that’s case, then what is the definition of the magnitude the whole residual block?) or a magnitude of one element of the block (if that’s case, then which element’s magnitude is used (since there are many elements)? Or any of them should be OK?)
Thus the scope of the claim and its dependent claim 2-8 are unclear.
13. Claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8.
14. Claim 17 and its dependent claims 18-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention for the similar reason as for claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8.
15. Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 7, it recites limitations of “the flag” in “decoding a skip flag in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using vector quantization”; However, in claim 6, which it depends on, it recites that: “decoding a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization”; therefore, it is not clear if “the flag” refers to “a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization” in claim 6 or “a skip flag” in claim 7.
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
16. 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 15, it recites limitations of “the flag” in “decoding a skip flag in response to the flag indicating that the residual block is not encoded using vector quantization”; However, in claim 14, which it depends on, it recites that: “decoding a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization”; therefore, it is not clear if “the flag” refers to “a flag indicating whether the residual block is encoded using vector quantization” in claim 14 or “a skip flag” in claim 15.
Thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
17. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
18. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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 on 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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights