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 .
Status of the Claims
Currently, claims 1-13 & 15-21 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 15, 19 7 20 are amended. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claim 21 is added.
Response to Arguments / Amendments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, see discussion below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
The applicant argued that Li does not include “indices of one or more entries of a dictionary in a bitstream, where the indices are binarized using a truncated unary coding, a truncated binary coding, a fixed length coding, or an exponential-Golomb coding" set forth in claim 1.
As to the above argument, the claim limitations recite the one or more entries of the dictionary in the bitstream as optional language using an “OR’ conjunction to choose from indices are binarized using a truncated unary coding, a truncated binary coding, a fixed length coding, or an exponential-Golomb coding.
Since, Li, at least, discloses in paragraph 54 ([0054]) indices are binarized using a truncated unary coding in the entropy coding techniques include Exp-Golomb coding, arithmetic coding, differential coding, Huffman coding, run length coding, variable-length-to-variable-length (“V2V”) coding, variable-length-to-fixed-length (“V2F”) coding, LZ coding, dictionary coding, probability interval partitioning entropy coding (“PIPE”), Li clearly meets one of the optional lists such as an exponential-Golomb coding.
Li also discloses an offset value between 65,811 and 300,000 would use 18 bits to encode the offset value as shown in Table 1 (([0114]) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
215
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection with regards to above arguments.
Double Patenting
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
US Patent No. 12316829
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12316829 (Application Number: 17/825998).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12316829. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12316829.
Regarding Claims 2 -18:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 2-18 of the instant application are recited in claims 2-18 of the US Patent No. 12316829.
Regarding Claims 19-20:
Independent claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12316829 with the same reason as claim 1 detailed as above.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20170064330, hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a current block of a current video region of a video and a bitstream of the video ([0051] FIG. 3, encoding [performing a conversion] represents an intra-coded block of a source frame (331) in terms of prediction from previously reconstructed sample values in the frame (331)),
wherein the current block is coded with a dictionary-based coding mode using one or more dictionaries ([0141] FIG. 7, pixel values are encoded using the 1-D dictionary mode 720 and the state of the 1-D dictionary and the encoded bit stream are depicted at 730), and
wherein the conversion is based on the one or more dictionaries ([0184] FIG. 11, Step 1110, one or more current pixel values are encoded in a dictionary mode (e.g., 1-D dictionary mode, pseudo 2-D dictionary mode, or inter pseudo 2-D dictionary mode), and
wherein a dictionary for the current block is reset before coding the current video region and updated after coding the current block ([0052], encoder calculates hash values of previously reconstructed sample values (e.g., groupings of 1 pixel, 2 pixels, 4 pixels, 8 pixels, and so on) and compare those has values for a hash value of a current pixel value being encoded. Matches of length one or more can be identified in the previously reconstructed sample values based on the hash comparison and the current pixel value (or values) can be encoded using the various 1-D and pseudo 2-D dictionary modes or the inter pseudo 2-D dictionary mode with reference to a reference picture),
wherein indices of one or more entries of a dictionary are included in the bitstream, and wherein the indices are binarized using a truncated unary coding ([0114] Table 1, if the current dictionary size is 300,000, then N can be set to 18 (i.e., 18 bits are needed to represent the maximum offset value of 300,000), and therefore an offset value between 65,811 and 300,000 would use 18 bits to encode the offset value. It should be understood that the offset value for Range 5 begins at 65,812, so to represent 300,000 only 18 bits are needed to represent the amount over 65,811), a truncated binary coding a fixed length coding or an exponential-Golomb coding ([0054] entropy coder can compress data for elements of an index map using a coefficient coding syntax structure. Typical entropy coding techniques include Exp-Golomb coding, arithmetic coding, differential coding, Huffman coding, run length coding, variable-length-to-variable-length (“V2V”) coding, variable-length-to-fixed-length (“V2F”) coding, LZ coding, dictionary coding, probability interval partitioning entropy coding (“PIPE”)).
PNG
media_image1.png
215
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a prediction block of the current block is based on one or more entries of a dictionary ([0184] FIG. 11, Step 1110, one or more current pixel values are encoded in a dictionary mode (e.g., 1-D dictionary mode, pseudo 2-D dictionary mode, or inter pseudo 2-D dictionary mode). Encoding the current pixel values comprises performing operations according to 1120 through 1150).
Regarding Claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the prediction block is determined using an entry of the dictionary, and wherein an index of the entry is included in the bitstream, or the index of the entry is inferred to N, and N is an integer ([0141] FIG. 7, example 700, the pixel values are encoded using the 1- D dictionary mode 720: the first pixel value may be the first pixel in the first block of a video frame))
PNG
media_image2.png
389
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 2, wherein how to select an entry of the dictionary is determined by minimizing a certain cost, wherein the certain cost corresponds to a rate distortion cost or a rate distortion characteristic between the entry and the current block, or the certain cost corresponds to a distortion between the entry and the current block ([0073], the general encoding control (520) decides whether and how to use dictionary modes during encoding. The general encoding control (520) can also evaluate intermediate results during encoding, for example, performing rate-distortion analysis)
Regarding Claim 5, Li discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the prediction block is determined solely based on multiple entries of the dictionary, or wherein the prediction block is determined based on multiple entries of the dictionary and a reconstructed area in a current picture including the current block ([0141] FIG. 7, example 700, the pixel values are encoded using the 1-D dictionary mode 720: the first pixel value may be the first pixel in the first block of a video frame))
Regarding Claim 6, Li discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a corresponding residual block between the current block and the prediction block is transformed, quantized and/or entropy coded ([0047], perform encoding tasks such as intra prediction estimation and prediction, motion estimation and compensation, frequency transforms, quantization and entropy coding)
Regarding Claim 7, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the dictionary is updated based on overlapping video blocks with different sizes that are contained in the current video region, or wherein the dictionary is updated based on overlapping video blocks with a size that is equal to M×N, and M and N are positive integers ([0123] , the offset and length can overlap the current pixel value being encoded/decoded such as pixel values [P-2, P-1, P0, P1, P2, P3] where P-2 and P-1 are the last two pixel values in the 1-D dictionary, P0 is the current pixel value being encoded/decoded, and P1 through P3 are the next pixel values to be encoded/decoded using an offset of 1 and a length of 3 (un-encoded offset and length values) is a valid condition in which P0 is predicted from P-1, P1 is predicted from P0, and P2 is predicted from P1).
Regarding Claim 8, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a hash function is used to exclude similar or identical video blocks from the dictionary ([0052], encoder calculates hash values of previously reconstructed sample values (e.g., groupings of 1 pixel, 2 pixels, 4 pixels, 8 pixels, and so on) and compare those has values for a hash value of a current pixel value being encoded. Matches of length one or more can be identified in the previously reconstructed sample values based on the hash comparison and the current pixel value (or values) can be encoded using the various 1-D and pseudo 2-D dictionary modes or the inter pseudo 2-D dictionary mode with reference to a reference picture).
Regarding Claim 9, Li discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the hash function is a cyclic redundancy check function with N bits, and N is a positive integer; wherein only a latter video block according to a raster order that is of two video blocks having a same hash value is included in the dictionary, or two video blocks having a same hash value are included in the dictionary; wherein each entry in the dictionary is a block list to store blocks with same hash values ([0171] a video or image encoder uses a hash-based search technique to identify matching pixel values with hash values are calculated and stored for every 1 pixel (e.g., every combined pixel that treats the components of the pixel, such as Y, U, and V components, or R, G, and B components, together), every 2 pixels, every 4 pixels, and every 8 pixels and hash values are created when a pixel value is added to a dictionary (e.g., added to a 1-D dictionary) for each combination of 1, 2, 4, and 8 pixels of which the current pixel is a part).
Regarding Claim 11, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a prediction block or a reconstruction block of the current block is derived by sorting entries in a dictionary ([0104], one or more current pixel values can be predicted from one or more previous pixel values (e.g., in scan order) in the 1-D dictionary mode performed by matching the current pixel values with the previous pixel values so that current pixel values is predicted exactly; [0172], if a pixel value in the hash matches the current pixel value being encoded, a check is made to match every 1 pixel value using the hashed pixel values or if a matching length of 2 is then matching can proceed with 2 pixels and above without the need to check hashes of 1 pixel anymore for the current pixel: matching operations are done with sorting)
15, Analogous rejection as the rejection of Claim 1 applies.
PNG
media_image1.png
215
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein how to select a dictionary for the current block is based on coding characteristic of the current block, and the coding characteristic includes a size of the current block and/or information in the bitstream ([0123] , the offset and length can overlap the current pixel value being encoded/decoded such as pixel values [P-2, P-1, P0, P1, P2, P3] where P-2 and P-1 are the last two pixel values in the 1-D dictionary, P0 is the current pixel value being encoded/decoded, and P1 through P3 are the next pixel values to be encoded/decoded using an offset of 1 and a length of 3 (un-encoded offset and length values) is a valid condition in which P0 is predicted from P-1, P1 is predicted from P0, and P2 is predicted from P1).
Regarding Claim 17, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream ([0016] FIG. 7, encoding a block of pixel values using a 1-D dictionary mode).
Regarding Claim 18, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream ([0017] FIG. 8 decoding a block of pixel values using a 1-D dictionary mode).
Regarding Claims 19 & 20, Apparatus claim 19 & 20 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 21, Computer Medium claim 21 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20170064330, hereinafter Li) in view of BHOLA et al. (US 20130031092, hereinafter BHOLA).
Regarding Claim 10, Li discloses the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the block list is updated with a first in first out (FIFO) rule, wherein a size of the block list is equal to Q, and wherein Q is equal to 1.
BHOLA teaches wherein the block list is updated with a first in first out (FIFO) rule, wherein a size of the block list is equal to Q, and wherein Q is equal to 1 ([0059], maintains a dynamic dictionary containing reads that are already processed and reads that are updated regularly in a FIFO manner. A hash table is used for indexing and fast repeat finding. The hash table is updated when reads are added to or removed from the dictionary. Whenever a new read is encoded, it is divided into blocks B.1, B.2 . . . B.n).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of block list is updated with a first in first out (FIFO) rule as taught by BHOLA ([0059]) into the encoding & decoding system of Li in order to provide sequence data in the text-based format obtained by using the next generation sequencing and the huge volumes of sequence data in the FASTQ format that is efficiently compressed with higher compression gain (BHOLA, [0007]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20170064330, hereinafter Li) in view of He et al. (US 20150373359, hereinafter He).
Regarding Claim 12, Li discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sorting is based on a distortion measure between a template of an entry in the dictionary and a template of the current block, wherein the sorting is in an ascending or descending order based on a template distortion cost, or wherein the sorting is in a descending order, and wherein only first K entries are used in the conversion.
He teaches wherein the sorting is based on a distortion measure between a template of an entry in the dictionary and a template of the current block, wherein the sorting is in an ascending or descending order based on a template distortion cost, or wherein the sorting is in a descending order, and wherein only first K entries are used in the conversion ([0087], FIGS. 16A-B, a decision box 1608, in which the following condition is evaluated: “SADY(BV)<SADY (N_best_BV[N−1])?” This condition is evaluated to determine if the luma SAD of the candidate block vector is one of the N best identified so far, where N is a predetermined integer greater than one. If the condition of 1608 is determined to be true, processing proceeds to step 1610 to insert the candidate block vector in the list N_best_BV list in ascending order by SADY).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the prediction block derived by sorting entries in a dictionary as taught by He ([0087]) into the encoding & decoding system of Li in order to improve the quality of experience for video applications running on devices with different capabilities over heterogeneous networks and the scalable video coding provide one or more levels of higher quality associated with one or more sets of enhanced parameters using one or more enhancement layer bit streams (He, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 13, Li in view of He discloses the method of claim 12,
He discloses wherein, for the current block having a size S1×S2, the template is denoted as a M×N region excluding an area corresponding to the size S1×S2, and S1, S2, M, and N are positive integers, M>S1 and M>S2; wherein the distortion measure is based on a sum of absolute differences (SAD) computation, a sum of absolute temporal differences (SATD) computation, a sum of squared errors (SSE) computation or a mean-squared error (MSE) computation, or wherein the entry includes the current block in a reconstructed region and the template of the current block ([0084], FIG. 15, if the current block's hash value exists in hash table, then the list of the corresponding block positions in the hash tables will be used for block vector search. For each block position in the list, the sum of absolute difference (SAD) between the original signal and the IntraBC prediction of the luma component will be compared to find the best block vector with minimal SAD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the prediction block derived by sorting entries in a dictionary as taught by He ([0087]) into the encoding & decoding system of Li in order to improve the quality of experience for video applications running on devices with different capabilities over heterogeneous networks and the scalable video coding provide one or more levels of higher quality associated with one or more sets of enhanced parameters using one or more enhancement layer bit streams (He, [0053]).
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 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 Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights