CTNF 19/227,883 CTNF 87973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Construction Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claims 1-26 are determined to be eligible under 35 USC § 101 in view of Ex parte Desjardins , 2024-000567. The claims recite abstract ideas directed to determinations broadly embodying mathematical calculations, logical concepts, or organization of data based on logical rules. However, on the basis of the present subject matter eligibility guidance, the claims are directed to “decoding video data” and “encoding video data” limitations that direct the claims to a practical application and to improvements discussed in Specification, Paragraph 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8-13, 21-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 8-13, 21-26 recite “ electronic circuitry adapted for … decoding the syntax element … encoding the syntax element ” a generic term (circuitry) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term. However, to the extent that the claims may name features of prior art industry standard HEVC, Specification specifically indicates: “However, the present embodiments are not limited to HEVC, and can be applied to other standards, recommendations, and extensions” in Paragraph 41. Therefore, the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Under the definitions of circuitry in Specification and Zhang, “integrated circuitry” refers to a processing device that is differentiated from “a computer, a microprocessor … or a programmable logic device.” See Specification, Paragraph 130. Since Specification excludes definitions of conventional circuitry used to process video signals and does not define the term electronic circuitry adapted for performing the entirety of the claim scope, this term renders the claims indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This paragraph describes the treatment of admitted prior art. In describing an invention, Applicant must inevitably reference that which is known in the art as the basis for the invention, however it is important that the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards to be his own invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as prior art is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int ’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as prior art is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another. MPEP 2129. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) as being barred by prior art admitted by the Applicant. The claims are directed to features of H.264 and the HEVC video coding standards which are prior art and admitted prior art, as described in the originally filed Specification (under the priority application 16766361) Pages 5-12. Cumulatively, these standard features are also confirmed by US 20160353112 to Zhang (“Zhang”) which was cited by a previous Examiner and also cited in an IDS . While the HEVC features serve as an important basis for Applicant’s intended improvements, Examiner recommends particularly claiming features of Applicant’s own invention that Applicant regards to provide improvements over the prior art. Regarding Claim 1: “ A method for decoding video data , comprising: (Prior art teaches this limitation: “video encoder 100, e.g. of HEVC type, adapted to execute the encoding method of any one of Figures 8-1 0, 14 and 16. … used herein to describe encoding/decoding methods and encoding/decoding apparatus” Specification, Page 8, lines 1-14. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraph 3.) determining a context for a syntax element associated with a current transform coefficient of a current block of a picture (This element can be embodied by an application of “Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC), Context Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC), Huffman, arithmetic, exp-Golomb, etc. CABAC is a method of entropy coding first introduced in H. 264 and also used in HEVC. CABAC involves binarization, context modeling and binary arithmetic coding. … Context modeling determines the probability of each regularly coded bin (i.e. nonbypassed) based on some specific context.” AAPA, Specification, Page 10, lines 21-26. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 6, 74.) wherein the context is determined based on a position of the current transform coefficient within the current block, and on transform coefficients in a local template, (Note that the claim is not limited to a specific basis, and HEVC coding is always performed based on area, position and number of non-zero coefficients in a coding block. AAPA covers coding based on determination of size [area] of the block in Specification, Pages 8-9, number [of significant coefficients in the scanning order] and position [indicated by significance map or (X,Y) coordinates] of the non-zero coefficients in the block in Specification, Page 12, lines 6-15. Note that the term local template is used interchangeably with the term significance map. See Specification Page 14, lines 14-18. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 329-330 and Fig. 13.) wherein the local template is a subset of transform coefficients of the current block comprising transform coefficients in a causal neighborhood of the current transform coefficient, ” (Note that the claim does not define and Specification does not use the term “casual neighborhood,” which is broadly interpreted to define a subset of the block that encodes transform coefficients which may include the current transform coefficient as well. See an example in Specification, Fig. 12. Prior art teaches multiple examples that fall within the scope of the claim language. AAPA teaches an example within this definition: “a 16x16 TB, i.e. a 16x16 block of samples on which a same transform is applied, divided into 4x4 sub-blocks of coefficients [subpart of the block exemplifying a casual neighborhood] … The significance map is the coded information that allows the decoder to identify the position of non-zero coefficients in the TB [another subpart of the block exemplifying a casual neighborhood]. The information includes a significant flag of a CG (called coded_sub_block_flag in HEVC ). The CG significant flag indicates if all coefficients in the CG are zero or not.” Specification, Page 12, lines 1-16. Note similarly that the illustration of this feature in Specification, Figs. 11, 12, 16 corresponds to the HEVC feature description in Zhang, Fig. 10-11 and Paragraph 135, 325-326: “A pre-defined template, such as local template 140 of FIG. 10 defines a diagonal scan order for an 8x8 transform block, where denotes the last significant scan position, 'x' denotes the current scan position, and "x," denotes the neighbors covered by local template 140.”) wherein, a position of at least one of the transform coefficients of the local template with respect to the current transform coefficient depends on a value representative of a shape of the current block; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the local template shape can be limited to be less than or equal to a 5x5 sub-block , i.e. spanning an area up to 2 coefficients on each side of the first transform coefficient. See Specification Figs. 11-12. AAPA teaches an example within this definition: “divided into 4x4 sub-blocks of coefficients [subpart of the block comprising coefficients]” Specification, Page 12, lines 1-16. Note similarly that the illustration of this feature in Specification, Figs. 11, 12, 16 corresponds to the HEVC feature description in Zhang, Figs. 10-11, 13, and Paragraphs 325-326, where the shapes of the templates correspond to the shape of the coded block: “one example, the template size and/or shape is dependent on one or more of the following criteria: (i) the size of transform units; or (ii) modes; … Partitioning modes may differ … PU s may be partitioned to be non-square in shape.” Paragraphs 135, 60.) decoding the syntax element based at least on the context. ” (“The significance map is the coded information that allows the decoder to identify the position of non-zero coefficients in the TB. The information includes a significant flag of a CG (called coded_sub_block_ flag in HEVC) and significant flags of coefficients in the CG (called sig_coeff_flag in HEVC).” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, lines 14-17. Note similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 311 and 292 on Page 34.) Regarding Claim 2: “ The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is a significant flag . ” (“The information includes … significant flags of coefficients in the CG (called sig_coeff_flag in HEVC).” AAPA, Specification, Page 12, lines 14-17. Note similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 311 and 292 on Page 34.) Regarding Claim 3: “ The method of claim 1, wherein the local template comprises more transform coefficients along a direction of a longest dimension of the current block . ” (Video coding commonly uses neighboring transform coefficients as references in intra-coding modes: AAPA teaches that “CUs in intra mode are predicted from reconstructed neighboring samples, e.g. within the same slice. A set of 35 intra prediction modes is available in HEVC, including a DC, a planar, and 33 angular prediction modes,” which comprises more neighboring transform coefficients along each dimension including a longest dimension. Specification, Page 12, lines 14-15. Note similarly that the illustration of this feature in Specification, Fig. 16 corresponds to the HEVC feature description in Zhang, Figs. 10-11 and Paragraphs 325-326, where there are neighboring coefficients along both of the (X,Y) directions of the block and thus comprise more neighboring transform coefficients along a direction of a longest dimension of the block.) Regarding Claim 4: “ The method of claim 1, wherein the transform coefficients of the local template and the current transform coefficient form a horizontal rectangle if the current block is a horizontal rectangle and form a vertical rectangle if the current block is vertical rectangle. ” (“In addition to the quad-tree split mode, new split modes (binary tree symmetric split modes, binary tree asymmetric split modes and triple tree split modes) are also defined. … Binary tree asymmetric split modes are defined to allow a CU to be split horizontally into two coding units with respective rectangular sizes (w,h/4) and 25 (w,3h/4) or vertically into two coding units with respective rectangular sizes (w/4,h) and (3w/4,h)) as depicted on Figure 6.” AAPA, Specification, Page 8, lines 31 - Page 9, line 32. Note similarly in Zhang, Paragraph 60.) Regarding Claim 5: “ The method of claim 1, wherein the position of at least one of the transform coefficients of the local template with respect to the current transform coefficient further depends on a scan order of the current block. ” (AAPA teaches that “'The entropy coding/decoding is made of several scanning passes, wihich scan the TB according to a scan pattern selected among several possible scan patterns, e.g., diagonal, horizontal and vertical,” where the significance map [template] coding depends on the selected scan order and the resulting numbers and positions of the significant coefficients. Specification, Page 12, lines 3-15. Note similarly that the illustration of this feature in Specification, Fig. 16 corresponds to the HEVC feature description in Zhang, Figs. 10-11, and Paragraphs 291-293 which indicate that the current transform coefficient is positioned inside a local template subject to scan order.) Regarding Claim 6: “ The method of claim 5, wherein the transform coefficients of the local template and the current transform coefficient form a horizontal rectangle if the scan order is horizontal and form a vertical rectangle if the scan order is vertical. ” (See treatment of Claim 5, and further, AAPA teaches that “The significance map [embodiment of the template] is the coded information that allows the decoder to identify the position of non-zero coefficients in the TB,” thus the map/template covers all the positions of the block and thus covers the shape of the block. Specification, Page 12, lines 14-15. Note similarly that the illustration of this feature in Specification, Fig. 16 corresponds to the HEVC feature description in Zhang, Figs. 10-11, 13, and Paragraphs 325-326, where the shapes of the templates and the reference blocks correspond to the shape of the coded block.) Claims 14-19, “ A method for encoding video data ,” are rejected for reasons for Claims 1-6 respectively, because the encoding method of the former is directed to the same data structures as the decoding method of the former, and because AAPA embodies the features in “encoding/decoding methods and encoding/decoding apparatus.” See AAPA, Specification, Page 8, lines 1-13. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraph 3 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-13, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of the additional teachings in Zhang . Claim 8, “ A device for decoding video data, ” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: AAPA teaches “ A decoding device [comprising electronic circuitry]” “encoding/decoding methods and encoding/decoding apparatus.” See AAPA, Specification, Page 8, lines 1-13. The AAPA in the Specification (or in the HEVC descriptions of Zhang) does not explicitly teach “ electronic circuitry adapted for [determining a context for a syntax element …]” Zhang teaches: “In some examples, video decoder 30 includes, is, or is part of a device that includes one or more of: one or more integrated circuits ; one or more digital signal processors (DSPs); one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs); a desktop computer; …” Zhang, Paragraph 354. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of AAPA to implement the functionality using electronic circuitry as taught in Zhang, in order to implement the claimed signal processing using one of the common technologies of signal processing as described in Zhang, Paragraph 354. Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularity directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness. Claims 9-13 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2-6, in view of the Claim 8 rejection Regarding Claim 7: “ A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 1. ” (“… storage devices, flash memory, or any other medium that can be used to store desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that can be accessed by a computer.” Zhang, Paragraph 355. See statement of motivation in Claim 8.) Claim 20 “ A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 14. ” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 7 and 14. Claim 21, “ A device for encoding video data ” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 8 and 14, and because prior art teaches: “encoding/decoding methods and encoding/decoding apparatus.” See AAPA, Specification, Page 8, lines 8-13 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tung Nguyen, Philipp Helle, Martin Winken, Detlev Marpe, Heiko Schwarz, Thomas Wiegand, "Entropy coding of syntax elements related to block structures and transform coefficient levels in HEVC," Proc. SPIE 8499, Applications of Digital Image Processing XXXV, 84990S (25 October 2012); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.945931. This reference is also relevant for context based encoding of video block structures under the HEVC standards. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm. 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on (571)272-7383. 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. /MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 2 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 3 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 4 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 5 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 6 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 7 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 8 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 9 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 10 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 11 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 12 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 13 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 14 Art Unit: 2483 Application/Control Number: 19/227,883 Page 15 Art Unit: 2483
