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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/133,736, filed on February 3rd, 2021 (European Application 18181293.4 filed on July 2nd, 2018).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 27th, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence less than 50 words (37 words) instead of 50 – 150 words written as a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 2, 7 – 12, and 17 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, and 13 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. #12,375,674 (Published claims will be cited.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Pending claim 1 is within the scope of Patented claim 1 regarding two transform coefficient levels are determined and assigned reconstruction levels.
Pending claim 2 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 – 3 regarding context of the parity flag.
Pending claim 7 is within the scope of Patented claim 1 regarding values of the state variable.
Pending claim 8 is within the scope of Patented claim 7 regarding the state transition conditions.
Pending claim 9 is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 6 where the context and reconstruction level in the pending claim are obvious variants in view of the claims and Specification for the state variable groupings in the claims.
Pending claim 10 is within the scope of Patented claim 1 regarding deciding the sign coefficient and its possible values.
Pending claim 11 is within the scope of Patented claim 8 regarding two transform coefficient levels are determined and assigned reconstruction levels.
Pending claim 12 is within the scope of Patented claims 8 – 10 regarding context of the parity flag.
Pending claim 17 is within the scope of Patented claim 8 regarding values of the state variable.
Pending claim 18 is within the scope of Patented claim 14 regarding the state transition conditions.
Pending claim 19 is within the scope of Patented claims 8 and 13 where the context and reconstruction level in the pending claim are obvious variants in view of the claims and Specification for the state variable groupings in the claims.
Pending claim 20 is within the scope of Patented claim 8 regarding deciding the sign coefficient and its possible values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the contexts are based in part on the reconstruction levels and levels of transform coefficients transmitted as obvious variants and thus understand the Patented claims as being within the scope of the pending claims at least.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 10 and 13 – 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the “minimum absolute values” has indefinite metes and bounds as to the minimization standard used. While the Specification in Page 53 – 54 of the Specification, there is no minimization criteria given and relying on the unclaimed equations would be improper importation from the Specification into the Claims. Thus, the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds on the criteria for achieving a “minimum”.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiency of claim 3 from which they depend and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 13 – 16, see claims 3 – 6 which are the apparatus claims performing the steps of the claimed methods and thus are similarly Rejected.
Claim limitation “the video decoder configured to …” [Claim 1]; “configured to update …” [Claim 8]; and “configured to decode …” [Claim 10] has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because Specification Page 77 lines 25 – 36 and Page 79 lines 8 – 17 contain software embodiments and thus the video decoder is not clearly connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art and further the claim appears to be a single means claim as the preamble is not being afforded patentable weight. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 2 – 10, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and thus are similarly Rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 9, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim needs to depend on claim 5 as the “numSig” syntax element / value is not introduced until claim 5. See corresponding 16 (the method performing the steps of claim 6) which depends on claim 15.
Regarding claim 9, the variable values in claim 7 were set to be one of 0, 1, 2, or 3 and thus the value of “4” is outside the range given in claim 7 thus claim 9 is an improper dependent claim.
Regarding claim 19, the variable values in claim 17 were set to be one of 0, 1, 2, or 3 and thus the value of “4” is outside the range given in claim 17 thus claim 19 is an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 7 – 9, 11 – 12, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban, et al. (US Patent #11,451,840 B2 referred to as “Coban” throughout) , and further in view of He, et al. (US PG PUB 2014/003533 A1 referred to as “He” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s June 27th, 2025 IDS as US PG PUB Item #2].
Regarding claim 11, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 2 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 8 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 1, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He. The combination teaches
the video decoder configured to [Coban Figures 1 and 8 (see at least reference character 300) as well as Column 7 lines 29 – 56 (hardware / software implementations of decoders)]:
determine a first transform coefficient level of a first transform coefficient based on a first parity flag decoded from a data stream using context adaptive entropy decoding, the first parity flag indicating a parity of the first transform coefficient level [Coban Figures 5 – 6 and 11 (see the transform coefficients levels with the greater than indication and parity information traversing between coefficient levels) as well as Column 10 line 32 – Column 11 line 30 (CABAC encoding / decoding used for the coefficients and the associated syntax elements also in Column 23 lines 1 – 22 and Column 28 line 53 – Column 29 line 8), Column 13 line 37 – Column 14 line 52 (parity of the current level (Column 13 lines 33 – 44) to drive transition between coefficient levels / dependent quantizers), Column 31 lines 19 – 46 and Column 32 line 36 – Column 33 line 50 (processing based on coefficient level each coefficient that is not zero); He Paragraphs 39 (CABAC coding / decoding), 70 (parity flag may be signaled in the bitstream to combine with Coban) and 74 – 77 (see code segment with “firstParity” syntax element which in view of Paragraph 70 may also be signaled)];
update a state variable to obtain an updated state variable based on the parity of the first transform coefficient level [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see state transitions based on significance of transform coefficient / parity (e.g. Figure 11)) as well as Column 13 line 37 – Column 14 line 52 (parity of the current level (Column 13 lines 33 – 44) to drive transition between coefficient levels / dependent quantizers), Column 17 lines 10 – 59 (state transitions / updates), Column 31 lines 19 – 60 and Column 32 line 36 – Column 33 line 50 (state transition / update processing based on coefficient level each coefficient that is not zero using the parity of coefficient)];
determine a second transform coefficient level of a second transform coefficient based on a second parity flag indicating a parity of the second transform coefficient level [Coban Figures 5 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see the transform coefficients levels with the greater than indication and parity information traversing between coefficient levels (columns in Figure 11 coefficient levels)) as well as Column 10 line 32 – Column 11 line 30 (CABAC encoding / decoding used for the coefficients and the associated syntax elements also in Column 23 lines 1 – 22 and Column 28 line 53 – Column 29 line 8), Column 13 line 37 – Column 14 line 52 (parity of the current level (Column 13 lines 33 – 44) to drive transition between coefficient levels / dependent quantizers), Column 31 lines 19 – 46 and Column 32 line 36 – Column 33 line 50 (processing based on coefficient level each coefficient that is not zero); He Paragraphs 39 (CABAC coding / decoding), 59, 70 (parity flag may be signaled in the bitstream to combine with Coban) and 74 – 77 (see code segment with “firstParity” syntax element which in view of Paragraph 70 may also be signaled or processed per level / transform coefficient traversed as the levels are iterated through / base level is increased)];
determine a reconstruction level set for the second transform coefficient level out of a plurality of reconstruction level sets based on the updated state variable [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 13 (see at least Figure 11 transitioning between transform / reconstruction levels) as well as Column 14 lines 1 – 52 (changing quantizer / updating with parity information changes determination of the reconstruction level), Column 16 line 29 – Column 17 line 34 (the current state is the reconstruction level / parity of the reconstruction level which is determined based on the parity and the update to the parity state), Column 31 lines 19 – 46 and Column 32 line 36 – Column 33 line 50 (processing based on coefficient / reconstruction level of each coefficient that is not zero); He Paragraphs 50 – 56 (reconstruction levels determined based on parity of levels / coefficients) and 73 – 77 (code for level determinations with parity consideration where in Paragraph 70 parity may be signaled in the bitstream)]; and
assign a reconstruction level of the reconstruction level set to the second transform coefficient based on the second transform coefficient level [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 13 (see at least Figure 11 transitioning between transform / reconstruction levels based on parity changes to transform coefficients) as well as Column 14 lines 1 – 52 (changing quantizer / updating with parity information changes determination of the reconstruction level), Column 16 line 29 – Column 17 line 34 (the current state is the reconstruction level / parity of the reconstruction level which is determined based on the parity and the update to the parity state), Column 31 lines 19 – 46 and Column 32 line 36 – Column 33 line 50 (processing based on coefficient / reconstruction level of each coefficient that is not zero), Column 34 lines 1 – 45 (second state / coefficient processed changing levels); He Paragraphs 50 – 56 (reconstruction levels determined based on parity of levels / coefficients), 59 (level data), and 73 – 77 (code for level determinations iterating through the levels with parity consideration where in Paragraph 70 parity may be signaled in the bitstream)].
The motivation to combine He with Coban is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding / decoding [He Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to improve encoding of transformed quantized coefficients in transform units [He Paragraphs 5 – 7 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Coban and He which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He. The combination teaches
wherein a context for context adaptive entropy decoding the first parity flag is selected based on a location (x, y) of the first transform coefficient within a transform block [Coban Figures 4 – 6 as well as Column 16 lines 42 – 63 (decoding parity information); He Paragraphs 40 (positive / negative sign for transform coefficients coded), 70 – 76 (see at least Paragraph 74 decoding parity information is in combination with Paragraphs 62 – 69 where position is considered in signaling parity information and selection of context (e.g. upper left corner – also in Paragraph 70 and the code segment in Paragraph 74 in which the parity is a function of position)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Coban and He.
Regarding claim 7, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He. The combination teaches
wherein the state variable can be any of 0, 1, 2, or 3 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the current state value column in Figure 6) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions) and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 (state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Coban and He.
Regarding claim 8, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He. The combination teaches
configured to update the state variable according to the parity of the first transform coefficient level according to:
when the state variable is 0: updating the state variable to 0 when the parity is 0 and 2 when the parity is 1 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the last two columns in Figure 6 and the transitions between states in Figure 11) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and the transitions described are those in line with Figure 6 first row of the table)];
when the state variable is 1: updating the state variable to 2 when the parity is 0 and 0 when the parity is 1 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the last two columns in Figure 6 and the transitions between states in Figure 11) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and the transitions described are those in line with Figure 6 second row of the table)];
when the state variable is 2: updating the state variable to 1 when the parity is 0 and 3 when the parity is 1 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the last two columns in Figure 6 and the transitions between states in Figure 11) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and the transitions described are those in line with Figure 6 third row of the table)];
and
when the state variable is 3: updating the state variable to 3 when the parity is 0 and 1 when the parity is 1 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the last two columns in Figure 6 and the transitions between states in Figure 11) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and the transitions described are those in line with Figure 6 first row of the table)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Coban and He.
Regarding claim 9, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He. The combination teaches
wherein the plurality of reconstruction level sets comprises two reconstruction level sets and the video decoder is configured to select a first reconstruction level set if the state variable is 0 or 1 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the dashed line in the state machine in which Q0 represents 0 or 1 values) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and grouped (Column 17 groups into Q0 and Q1 in a generic sense of the four values and thus the grouping claimed is a selection from a finite number of elements)] and
select a second reconstruction level set if the state variable is 3 or 4 [Coban Figures 4 – 6 and 10 – 11 (see at least the dashed line in the state machine in which Q1 represents 2 or 3 values) as well as Column 16 line 64 – Column 17 line 37 (state values and transitions in which transitions based on parity as in Figure 11 and Column 32 line 25 – Column 33 line 9 where state machine values are 0, 1, 2, 3 and grouped (Column 17 groups into Q0 and Q1 in a generic sense of the four values and thus the grouping claimed is a selection from a finite number of elements where other values such as 3 or 4 for Q1 are possible)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Coban and He.
Claim(s) 3 – 5, 10, 13 – 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coban, He, and further in view of Zhang, et al. (WO2017/040828 A1 referred to as “Zhang” throughout).
Regarding claim 13, see claim 3 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 4 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 5 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 10 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban. Zhang teaches additional level determinations, passes considerations, and processing information to decode transform coefficients using dependent quantizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He and with the sign information and additional computations for context determination as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the context is selected based on a sum of minimum absolute values, sumAbs1, of transform coefficient levels at one or more positions among (x+1, y), (x+2, y), (x+1, y+1), (x, y+1), and (x, y+2), the minimum absolute values based on context adaptive entropy decoded flags decoded at the one or more positions [Coban Column 18 lines 18 – 33; He Paragraphs 43 – 46 and 62 – 70 (position based context selection); Zhang Figures 3 – 4 as well as Paragraphs 107 – 109 (summing absolute values of coefficients in the context group / coefficient group being processed), 124 – 128 (summation of absolute values based on flags / levels signaled and minimum values summer / parameters), 150 – 159 (sum templates of absolute values in a neighborhood used for context selection and based on positions)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Coban and He.
The motivation to combine Zhang with He and Coban is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding / decoding to select parameters for context selection [Zhang Paragraphs 2 and 6 – 7] in order to improve context selection [Zhang Paragraphs 32 and 153 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Coban, He, and Zhang, which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban. Zhang teaches additional level determinations, passes considerations, and processing information to decode transform coefficients using dependent quantizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He and with the sign information and additional computations for context determination as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the context adaptive entropy decoded flags decoded at the one or more positions are decoded in a first pass of decoding transform coefficient levels within a subblock of the transform block [Coban Column 20 lines 1 – 43 (passes for encoding through the levels of reconstruction / transform coefficients), Zhang Paragraphs 90 – 98 and 106 – 108 (code included where passes of reconstruction / transform levels are performed)].
See claim 3 for the motivation to combine Coban, He, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban. Zhang teaches additional level determinations, passes considerations, and processing information to decode transform coefficients using dependent quantizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He and with the sign information and additional computations for context determination as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
wherein the context is based on a number of nonzero transform coefficients, numSig, at the one or more positions [Coban Figures 4 – 9 as well as Column 16 lines 7 – 64 (context selection based on the number of significant coefficients), Column 18 lines 34 – 64 (number of coefficients to affect context / signaling of other parameters), and Column 22 lines 10 – 36; He Paragraphs 62 – 69 (context selection with exemplary parameters / considerations given to combine with the number of significant coefficients in Paragraphs 70 – 76 including code segments); Zhang Paragraphs 82 – 85 (see at least the numSigCoeff syntax element used for decoding and context selection)].
See claim 3 for the motivation to combine Coban, He, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 10, Coban teaches state transitions for dependent quantizers based on the transform level / coefficient being processed. He teaches syntax and signaling parity information in the bitstream for Coban. Zhang teaches additional level determinations, passes considerations, and processing information to decode transform coefficients using dependent quantizers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coban with the various code changes of syntax elements / information as suggested by He and with the sign information and additional computations for context determination as taught by Zhang. The combination teaches
configured to decode a sign coefficient of 1 or -1 for the second transform coefficient when the second transform coefficient level is not zero [Coban Figures 4 – 6 as well as Column 18 lines 1 – 44 (decoding sign information); He Paragraphs 40 (positive / negative sign for transform coefficients coded), 70 – 76 (see at least Paragraph 74 decoding sign bits and in combination with Paragraphs 62 – 69 position is considered in signaling sign information and selection of context (e.g. upper left corner – also in Paragraph 70 and the code segment in Paragraph 74 in which the sign is a function of position); Zhang Paragraphs 30, 82 (including code segments), and 90 – 96 (signaling positive or negative signs for non-zero coefficients)], and
wherein the reconstruction level is assigned based on the sign coefficient [See claim 1 last limitation for Coban citations and additionally He Paragraphs 70 – 76 (code segment included were the coefficient sign flag is used to adjust the transform / reconstruction level determination); Zhang Paragraphs 82 (code segment included where the coefficient / reconstruction level is a function of sign data decoded) and 90 – 98 (sign flag indicates significant coefficient to determine base level and adjustments to determine the reconstruction level)].
See claim 3 for the motivation to combine Coban, He, and Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 112(d) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ) 4th paragraph as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6 (claim 16 is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 16), the claim recites a novel equation for the context determination which is not fairly taught in the prior art as Zhang is the closest prior art and while teaching the minimum function and 4 as an input, lacks the “sumAbs1 – numSig” requirement claimed as the other values are not such a claimed difference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights