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 .
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 (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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Said et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0243442 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “a non-transitory computer readable-medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method …” is a product by process claim limitation, where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method. MPEP 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is a storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method). The structure includes the data in compressed form manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP 21105.(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable storage medium merely serves as support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP 2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20, merely serves as support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP 2111.05 (III). Thus, the scope of claim 20 is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Said et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0243442 A1), where disclosed is “Storage device 112 may include any of a variety of distributed or locally accessed data storage media such as a hard drive, Blu-ray discs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, flash memory, volatile or non-volatile memory, or any other suitable digital storage media for storing encoded video data”, [0035-0036].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,6, 8-10, 14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said et al.., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0243442 A1) in view of Wang et al., WO 2023/086330 A1.
As per claim 1, Said teachers a method for video decoding, comprising: receiving a bitstream that comprises coded information of a current block (fig. 9); determining a plurality of hypotheses for a decoder side quantization shifting offset prediction, a hypothesis in the plurality of hypotheses corresponding to potential quantization shifting offset setting in a transform domain of the current block ([0002], [0102], [0117-0118], [0135], [0143], [0145-0146] and figs. 4, 6, 9, 12; “..The method includes determining a set of quantization offset parameters for a group of scaled transform coefficients for a block of video data based on side information associated with the block of video data”); determining one or more quantization shifting offsets for transform coefficients in the transform domain based on the specific hypothesis ([0142]; “.. quantization offsets in an M-dimensional QOV are indexed from 0 to M−1. Thus, video encoder 200 may select a quantization offset from a QOV using the equation v.sub.n=V[min(M−1, n)], where v.sub.n is the quantization offset that is the n-th element of the QOV, if n is less than M−1.”) reconstructing the transform coefficients based on the one or more quantization shifting offsets (figs. 4, 6 and 8-9); calculating residuals in a spatial domain of the current block based on the transform coefficients in the transform domain of the current block based on the transform coefficients in the transform domain (fig. 8-9); and reconstructing the current block according to the residuals (fig.9). Said does not explicitly disclose calculating cost values respectively associated with the plurality of hypotheses; selecting a specific hypothesis from the plurality of hypotheses according to the cost values.
However, Wang teaches the known concept of calculating cost values respectively associated with the plurality of hypotheses (fig. 21-22; el. 2116, 2210), and selecting a specific hypothesis from the plurality of hypotheses according to the cost value (fig. 21-22; el. 2116, 2210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Xiu with Said for the benefit of improving coding efficiency.
As per claim 6, Said (modified by Wang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Said teaches a hypothesis that sets a value to at least a quantization shifting offset for a non-zero transform coefficient (fig. 6 and [0156]).
As per claim 8, Although Said (modified by Wang) discloses selecting the video encoder may therefore quantize each group of transform coefficient based on the quantization offset parameters associated with the group of transform coefficients, with performance improvement based on the selection of best offset, [0006], Said does not explicitly disclose selecting the specific hypothesis that has a lowest cost.
However, Wang teaches selecting the specific hypothesis that has the lowest cost value (figs. 21-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiu with Said for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 9, Said (modified by Wang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Said does not explicitly disclose calculating a cost value associated with a hypothesis according to reconstructed pixels in the current block due to the hypothesis and one or more neighboring reconstructed blocks.
However, Wang teaches calculating a cost value associated with a hypothesis according to reconstructed pixels in the current block due to the hypothesis and one or more neighboring reconstructed blocks ([00144], [00173-00175], [00202] and fig. 16A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Said for the benefit of improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 10, Said (modified by Wang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 9. Said does not explicitly disclose calculating the cost value that measures a discontinuity between the reconstructed pixels in the current block due to the hypothesis and the one or more neighboring reconstructed blocks.
However, Wang teaches calculating the cost value that measures a discontinuity between the reconstructed pixels in the current block due to the hypothesis and the one or more neighboring reconstructed blocks ([00122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang with Said for the benefit of improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 14, which is the corresponding method for video encoding with the limitations of the method for video decoding, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding method for encoding with the limitations of the method for video decoding, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim6 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method, with the limitations of the method for video decoding as recited in claim. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 11-13 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0274583 A1), “Residual Coefficients Sign Prediction With Adaptive Cost Function For Intra Prediction Modes”
Xiu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024041375 A1), “Sign Prediction For Block-Based Video Coding”
Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0057418 A1), “Quantization Offset And Cost Factor Modification For Video Encoding”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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 at 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 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights