DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Since claim 14 has been canceled, the rejection of claim 12 under § 102 are now
moot.
Newly added claim 13 raises new issues of patentability and is addressed in the rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
The following is a quotation of 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Marpe et al. (US 20050038837 Al), hereinafter referred to as Marpe.
Regarding claims 13, this claim is directed to a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The limitations related to the operations that generated the bitstream are irrelevant as in terms of determining patentability of the method of transmitting a bitstream Therefore, the operations referenced in the claim(s) that generates the bitstream do not form part of transmitting method, and thus are not limiting to the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim scope is just a method of transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Marpe which recites a method of transmitting a bitstream (See Marpe, ¶¶ [0106] and [0111]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 13 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.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is directed to “a method of transmitting a data stream,” but fails to recite any affirmative step of transmitting the data stream. The body of the claim merely specifies that “the data stream is generated using the encoding method of claim 11.” Thus, although the claim purports to be directed to a method of transmitting a data stream, it does not positively recite any step defining how the claimed method performs transmission. Accordingly, it is unclear what active step(s) constitute the claimed method of transmitting. See MPEP §2173.05(q).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2- 11 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to an entropy-coding concept for coding video media content.
Applicant uniquely claimed a distinct feature in the independent claim 2. The feature is wherein the selection depends on the activated one of the low-complexity mode and the high-efficiency mode, wherein the entropy decoder is configured such that each of the plurality of entropy decoding schemes involves arithmetic decoding of the symbols the respective entropy decoding scheme has been selected for, with the plurality of entropy decoding schemes differing from each other in using a different probability estimate in the arithmetic decoding and such that the plurality of entropy decoding schemes perform their probability sub-division on a common probability interval so as to decode the symbols from one common bitstream, wherein the entropy decoder is configured such that merely one probability interval width value R and offset state value V is managed for the plurality of entropy decoding schemes, wherein each symbol of the sequence of symbols is associated with a respective one of a plurality of symbol types, wherein for each symbol of a predetermined symbol type, in both the low-complexity mode and the high-efficiency mode, one of the plurality of entropy decoding schemes is selected, and the selection depends on a probability model associated with the predetermined symbol type and the probability model is updated depending on the symbols of the predetermined symbol type at a first update rate in case of the high-efficiency mode being activated, and at a second update rate lower than the first update rate in case of the low-complexity mode being activated.
The closest prior art found were Marpe and Sole Rojas et al. (US 8,902,988 B2), hereinafter referred to as Sole Rojas.
Marpe pertains to binarization schemes and coding schemes, in particular, to binarization and arithmetic coding schemes for use in video coding applications comprising a context modeler that adapts an actual bit or bin value probability distribution estimation in accordance with a predetermined context model type, which is associated with that bit, or bin (Marpe [0046]). Sole Rojals is directed to video coding and, more particularly, entropy coding for video coding comprising a context-modeling unit that updates the probability estimate associated with an assigned context in a joint context model within joint context model store. By continually updating the probability estimates of the joint context model to reflect the actual decoded values of the coefficients, the probability estimates for future coefficients assigned to the same contexts in the joint context model may be more accurate and result in further reduced bit decoding by arithmetic decoding unit (Sole Rojals Col. 26:34-43). However, the above prior art, either, singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious.
Independent claim 5, 8 and 11 recite limitations similar to the limitations, in question, discussed above. Therefore, independent claim 37 is allowable for analogous reasons.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are allowed for the reasons concerning the independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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 Atala can be reached on (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 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights