DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 9712844 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. US 9712844 B2.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. US 10462487 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10462487 B2 (the symbolization parameter is determined based on the operation involving a second previously decoded transform coefficient and an information component type of the current transform coefficient's transform block).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. US 11616982 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11616982 B2 (the symbolization parameter is determined based on the operation involving second previously decoded information and a color component type related to the transform coefficient block).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. US 11968395 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11968395 B2 (the symbolization parameter is determined based on the operation involving a second previously decoded transform coefficient and an information component type including a color component type related to the transform coefficient block).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 12375716 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12375716 B2 (the symbolization parameter is determined based on the operation involving a second previously decoded transform coefficient and an information component type including a color component type related to the transform coefficient block).
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kadono discloses One or more memory or storage devices having stored thereon a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claims, “a data stream” is not given patentable weight, because “a data stream” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claim 19.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marpe et al. (2003) (Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard) in view of Bardone et al. (Adaptive Golomb Codes For Level Binarization In The H.264/AVC FRExt Lossless Mode).
Regarding claim 1. Marpe et al. (2003) discloses A decoder for decoding, from a data stream, a plurality of transform coefficients associated with different transform blocks (page 626 column 1 last paragraph, a H.264/AVC encoder/decoder; page 627 column 1 section III paragraph 1, CABAC for all residual data elements, i.e., all syntax elements related to the coding of transform coefficients, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method), each of the plurality of transform coefficients having a transform coefficient level (page 620 column 2 paragraph 1, a block of transform coefficient levels is first mapped onto a one-dimensional list using a pre-defined scanning pattern), comprising:
an extractor configured to extract a set of symbols from the data stream for a current transform coefficient (figure 3, page 623 column 2 paragraph 4, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols); page 624 column 1 paragraph 3, concatenated scheme derived from the TU and the EGk binarization are applied to absolute values of transform coefficient levels, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method);
a desymbolizer configured to map the set of symbols onto a transform coefficient level for the current transform coefficient in accordance with a symbolization scheme which is parameterizable in accordance with a symbolization parameter (figure 3, page 623 column 2 paragraph 4, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols), k is a symbolization parameter; page 624 column 1 paragraph 3, concatenated scheme derived from the TU and the EGk binarization are applied to absolute values of transform coefficient levels, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method), wherein the symbolization parameter is determined (page 623 column 2 paragraph 6, an appropriately chosen parameter k); and
a symbolization parameter determinator configured to determine the symbolization parameter for the current transform coefficient (page 623 column 2 paragraph 6, an appropriately chosen parameter k),
wherein the extractor, the desymbolizer and the symbolization parameter determinator are configured to sequentially process the plurality of transform coefficients (figure 1, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method).
However, Marpe et al. (2003) does not explicitly disclose
determine the symbolization parameter depending, via a function parameterizable based on a function parameter, on previously processed transform coefficients;
wherein the function parameter varies based on at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a size of a transform block associated with the current transform coefficient,
an information component type of the transform block associated with the current transform coefficient, and
a frequency portion the current transform coefficient is located within the transform block.
Bardone et al. discloses
determine the symbolization parameter depending, via a function parameterizable based on a function parameter, on previously processed transform coefficients (figure 3, page 289 column 2 paragraphs 5-6 and last paragraph, Golomb parameter k is backward adaptively estimated based on local, per-block statistics, the statistics are updated with the newly coded symbol, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method);
wherein the function parameter varies based on at least one selected from the group consisting of:
a size of a transform block associated with the current transform coefficient,
an information component type of the transform block associated with the current transform coefficient, and
a frequency portion the current transform coefficient is located within the transform block (figure 3, page 289 column 2 paragraphs 5-6 and last paragraph, Golomb parameter k is backward adaptively estimated based on local, per-block statistics, the statistics are updated with the newly coded symbol, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method).
Marpe et al. (2003) discloses the statistics are related to information component type (page 630 column 1 paragraphs 2-3, In H.264/AVC residual data coding, there are 12 different types of transform coefficient blocks (denoted by BlockType in left column of Table IV), which typically have different kinds of statistics; page 626 column 2 Table IV block type (corresponding to information component type)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Marpe et al. (2003) and Bardone et al., to determine the symbolization parameter depending, via a function parameterizable based on a function parameter, on previously processed transform coefficients, in order to lead to the shortest binary representation by optimizing the symbolization parameter (Bardone et al. page 289 column 2 paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2. Bardone et al. discloses The decoder according to claim 1, wherein the decoder is configured to spatially determine the previously processed transform coefficients based on a relative spatial arrangement relative to the current transform coefficient (figure 3, page 289 column 2 paragraphs 5-6 and last paragraph, Golomb parameter k is backward adaptively estimated based on local, per-block statistics (local, per-block indicates a spatial arrangement relative to the current transform coefficient)).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3. Marpe et al. (2003) discloses The decoder according to claim 1, wherein the extractor is configured to extract the set of symbols from the data stream directly or using entropy decoding based on a fixed probability distribution (figure 3, page 623 column 2 paragraph 4, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols); page 624 column 1 paragraph 3, concatenated scheme derived from the TU and the EGk binarization are applied to absolute values of transform coefficient levels, the corresponding decoding method are reverse to the encoding method).
Regarding claim 5. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9. Marpe et al. (2003) discloses The encoder according to claim 5, wherein the symbolizer is configured to restrict the symbolization scheme to a level interval out of a range interval of the plurality of transform coefficients such that the set of symbols represents a prefix or a suffix with respect to other portions of an overall symbolization of the current transform coefficient (page 624 column 1 paragraph 3, For larger values, there is the idea of concatenating an adapted truncated unary tree as a prefix and a static Exp-Golomb code tree as a suffix (i.e., the set of symbols), inherently each of the large values falls into a level greater than a maximum level associated with the prefix because each of the large values needs the suffix to map its level in addition to the prefix).
Regarding claim 10. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18. The same analysis has been stated in claim 9.
Regarding claim 19. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Claims 4, 8, 13, 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marpe et al. (2003) (Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard) in view of Bardone et al. (Adaptive Golomb Codes For Level Binarization In The H.264/AVC FRExt Lossless Mode) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiely (Selecting the Golomb Parameter in Rice Coding).
Regarding claim 4. Marpe et al. (2003) discloses The decoder according to claim 1, wherein:
the symbolization scheme is such that the set of symbols is of a Rice code (figure 3, page 623 column 2 paragraphs 4-5, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols) including the prefix part and the suffix part, inherently it is a Rice code because x is divided by
2
k
(a power of 2) to construct the two parts, see Kiely abstract paragraph 1; page 624 column 1 paragraph 3, concatenated scheme derived from the TU and the EGk binarization are applied to absolute values of transform coefficient levels); and
the symbolization parameter is a Rice parameter (figure 3, page 623 column 2 paragraphs 4-5, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols), k is a symbolization parameter, the kth order Exp-Golomb (EGk) code word (i.e., a set of symbols) including the prefix part and the suffix part, inherently it is a Rice code and k is a Rice parameter because x is divided by
2
k
(a power of 2) to construct the two parts, see Kiely abstract paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights