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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,457,217 B2.
Claim 1, 19/264,059
Claim 1, US 11,457,217 B2
A video decoding method, comprising:
A video decoding method, comprising:
acquiring a bitstream including a context element;
acquiring a bitstream including information for a syntax element of a current block;
performing at least one of a context model determination, a probability update, and a probability interval determination on the syntax element; and
performing a context model determination,
on the syntax element; and
arithmetically decoding the predetermined syntax element on the basis of a result of the performance.
arithmetically decoding the syntax element based on a result of the context model determination and the information for the syntax element,
wherein the context model determination comprises to select a probability model for the syntax element,
wherein the probability model for the syntax element is determined based on a prediction mode of an adjacent block of the current block, and
wherein the probability model for the syntax element of the current block is determined based on whether the prediction mode of the adjacent block is a matrix weighted intra prediction mode.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 1, 10-12, 11, 4, 13, 15, 16, and 15, respectively, of the ‘217 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Said, US 2019/0110080 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Said discloses: a video decoding method, comprising:
acquiring a bitstream including a context element ([0070], last 5 lines disclose video decoder 30 using de-binarizing bins to recover syntax elements.);
performing at least one of a context model determination (See “context reinitialization”, in [0092]), a probability update (See “Progressive adaption”, as disclosed in [0129]-[0131], which measures progression, t, of probability estimation progress, and updates the initial probability estimation using weights to adjust probability accorded to each bin/context.), and a probability interval determination (Probability Estimation. See [0090].) on the syntax element; and
arithmetically decoding the predetermined syntax element on the basis of a result of the performance ([0079] and figure 11b disclose an arithmetic decoder that use progressive adaption in accordance with the invention.).
Regarding claim 5, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 4, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of a current block is determined based on a syntax element of an adjacent block of the current block which corresponds to the syntax element of the current block (See [0125], which discloses with respect to figure 9A using data from neighboring blocks to a current block to derive FSM parameters, using a single bit to indicate whether probability estimate for a given syntax element has changed.).
Regarding claim 6, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 5, wherein the adjacent block comprises a block which is adjacent to a left side of the current block and a block which is adjacent to an upper side of the current block (As shown in figure 9a, and disclosed in [0125], information from blocks that are above, and to the left of the current block are used for context updates to the current block).
Regarding claim 7, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 4, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of a current block is determined based on a prediction mode of an adjacent block of the current block (See [0125], which discloses with respect to figure 9a using data from neighboring blocks to determine FSM parameters (which determine a probability model) for a current block. The FSM determines a probability model, as disclosed in [0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 7, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of the current block is determined based on whether the prediction mode of the adjacent block is an intra prediction mode (“For instance, in the example
of FIG. 9A, FSM parameter determination units 712, and 812 may determine FSM parameters based at least in part on information from one or more neighboring blocks. The information may include prediction modes, quantization parameters, and so on.).
Regarding claim 13, Said discloses: a video encoding method, comprising:
performing at least one of a context model determination (See “context reinitialization”, in [0092].), a probability update (See “Progressive adaption”, as disclosed in [0129]-[0131], which measures progression, t, of probability estimation progress, and updates the initial probability estimation using weights to adjust probability accorded to each bin/context.), and a probability interval determination (Probability Estimation. See [0090].) on a syntax element;
arithmetically decoding the predetermined syntax element on the basis of a result of the performance ([0079] and figure 11b disclose an arithmetic decoder that use progressive adaption in accordance with the invention.); and
generating a bitstream including the syntax element arithmetically decoded (See [0181], last four lines.).
Regarding claim 15, Said discloses: the video encoding method of claim 13, wherein the context model determination comprises to select a probability model for the syntax element ([0092] discloses selecting a context with respect to figure 5 for arithmetic encoding/decoding.).
Regarding claim 16, Said discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing the bitstream generated by a video encoding apparatus performing a video encoding method of claim 13 (See [0227], disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable medium)).
Regarding claim 17, Said discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream comprising:
information about a syntax element (([0070], last 5 lines disclose video decoder 30 using de-binarizing bins to recover syntax elements);
wherein at least one of a context model determination, a probability update, and a probability interval determination on the syntax element is performed (See “context reinitialization”, in [0092]), a probability update (See “Progressive adaption”, as disclosed in [0129]-[0131], which measures progression, t, of probability estimation progress, and updates the initial probability estimation using weights to adjust probability accorded to each bin/context.), and
wherein the syntax element is arithmetically decoded based on a result of the performing (Probability Estimation. [0079] and figure 11b disclose an arithmetic decoder that use progressive adaption in accordance with the invention.).
Regarding claim 19, Said discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the context model determination comprises to select a probability model for the syntax element ([0092] discloses selecting a context with respect to figure 5 for arithmetic encoding/decoding.).
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said in view of Ikai, US 11,240,500 B2.
Regarding claim 2, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the context model determination includes a context initialization (See [0092], last 5 lines.),
the context initialization is performed using information of a block which is adjacent to an upper side of the first CTU (See [0125], disclosing with respect to figure 9a initialization finite state machine (FSM) parameters for CABAC coding using data from neighboring blocks (above, to the left, and above right) of the current block).
Said does not disclose explicitly:
the context initialization is performed on the first Coding Tree Unit (CTU) of a horizontal line of CTUs, and
However, Ikai discloses this limitation in an analogous art. See Column 13, lines 28-30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to perform CABAC initialization at the beginning of each CTU row, as disclosed in Ikai, in order to maintain independency of CABAC coding for each row, preventing potentially inaccurate contexts from a previous row from impacting encoding/decoding. Ikai, column 13, lines 28-30.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Said in view of Ikai discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which depends claim 3. This combination, specifically Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 2, wherein the context initialization is performed on the first CTU of the horizontal line of the CTUs in a tile ([0143] in Said discloses start of a slice/tile (first CTU in a horizontal line in a first row of a tile), as a condition for changing context parameters (reinitializing context).).
Regarding claim 4, Said discloses: the video decoding method of claim 1, wherein the context model determination comprises to select a probability model for the syntax element ([0092] discloses selecting a context with respect to figure 5 for arithmetic encoding/decoding.).
Regarding claim 14, Said discloses: the video encoding method of claim 13, wherein the context model determination includes a context initialization (See [0092], last 5 lines),
the context initialization is performed using information of a block which is adjacent to an upper side of the first CTU (See [0125], disclosing with respect to figure 9a initialization finite state machine (FSM) parameters for CABAC coding using data from neighboring blocks (above, to the left, and above right) of the current block).
Said does not disclose explicitly:
the context initialization is performed on the first Coding Tree Unit (CTU) of a horizontal line of CTUs, and
However, Ikai discloses this limitation in an analogous art. See Column 13, lines 28-30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to perform CABAC initialization at the beginning of each CTU row, as disclosed in Ikai, in order to maintain the independence of CABAC coding for each row, preventing potentially inaccurate contexts from a previous row from impacting encoding/decoding. (Ikai, column 13, lines 28-30.)
Regarding claim 18, Said discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the context model determination includes a context initialization (See [0092], last 5 lines.),
the context initialization is performed using information about a block which is adjacent to an upper side of the first CTU (See [0125], disclosing with respect to figure 9a initialization finite state machine (FSM) parameters for CABAC coding using data from neighboring blocks (above, to the left, and above right) of the current block.).
wherein the context initialization is performed on a first Coding Tree Unit (CTU) of a horizontal line of CTUs, and wherein
However, Ikai discloses this limitation in an analogous art. See Column 13, lines 28-30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to perform CABAC initialization at the beginning of each CTU row, as disclosed in Ikai, in order to maintain independency of CABAC coding for each row, preventing potentially inaccurate contexts from a previous row from impacting encoding/decoding. (Ikai, column 13, lines 28-30.)
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said in view of Lee, US 2021/0037257 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Said discloses the limitations of claim 7, upon which depends claim 9. Said does not disclose: the video decoding method of claim 7, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of the current block is determined based on whether the prediction mode of the adjacent block is an affine inter mode or a sub-block merge mode.
Lee suggests in an analogous art it would have been obvious to include an affine inter mode/sub-block merge mode among the prediction modes identified for a probability model update per [0125] of Said. As disclosed in [0117]-[0121], affine motion prediction was known in the art for performing motion prediction using
Given the disclosure in Said [0125] to use a prediction mode of an adjacent block for updating context of a syntax element in a current block, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to determine the probability model for the syntax element of the current block based on an indication of whether an affine merge/sub-block merge mode is used for the neighbor block, because Lee discloses that affine motion prediction modes were known types of prediction modes in the art of video coding before the applicant’s effective filing date.
‘“A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.’ MPEP 2143.I.E.
The ordinary artisan would have recognized, given Said’s teaching to use an adjacent prediction mode for updating a probability model of a current block syntax element, that there were a finite number of prediction modes in the art and inclusion of planar modes would have been obvious to try.
Regarding claim 12, Said discloses the limitations of claim 7, upon which depends claim 12. Said does not disclose: the video decoding method of claim 7, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of the current block is determined based on an indicator which is used to determine whether a planar mode is used for the adjacent block.
Lee suggests in an analogous art it would have been obvious to include an intra planar mode among the prediction modes identified for a probability model update per [0125] of Said. As disclosed in [0046]-[0047] of Lee, a prediction mode for a block in HEVC or VVC standards may include selection of inter-prediction or intra prediction. When intra prediction is selected, prediction modes to choose among include directional and non-directional (planar and DC) modes.
Given the disclosure in Said [0125] to use a prediction mode of an adjacent block for updating context of a syntax element in a current block, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to determine the probability model for the syntax element of the current block based on an indication of whether planar mode is used for the neighbor block, because Lee discloses that DC and planar modes were known types of prediction modes in the art of video coding before the applicant’s effective filing date.
‘“A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.’ MPEP 2143.I.E.
The ordinary artisan would have recognized, given Said’s teaching to use an adjacent prediction mode for updating a probability model of a current block syntax element, that there were a finite number of prediction modes in the art and inclusion of planar modes would have been obvious to try.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Said in view of Hsiang, US 2018/0007539 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Said discloses the limitations of claim 7, upon which claim 10 depends. Said does not disclose: the video decoding method of claim 7, wherein the probability model for the syntax element of the current block is determined based on whether the prediction mode of the adjacent block is an intra block copy mode.
However, Hsiang discloses in an analogous art using intra block copy mode to signal the horizontal and vertical component-wise difference of a block vector difference (BVD) between neighboring blocks using first and second flags, and encoding the second flag using a context model derived based on the first flag (See [0013]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the intra block copy mode signaling and associated context-based encoding of component flags, as disclosed in Hsiang, in order more efficiently to block vector differences between adjacent blocks (Hsiang, [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Said discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing program instructions for transmitting a bitstream, the program instructions comprising:
an instruction to perform generating the bitstream; and
an instruction to transmit the bitstream,
wherein the generating the bitstream comprises:
generating the bitstream comprising information about an arithmetically encoded syntax element generated by a video encoding method, wherein the video encoding method comprises: performing at least one of a context model determination, a probability update, and a probability interval determination on a syntax element; and arithmetically encoding the syntax element based on a result of the performing to generate the arithmetically encoded syntax element.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing program instructions for transmitting a bitstream, followed by bitstream transmission steps and bitstream generation steps. This claim reads on prior art which discloses transmitting and generating a bitstream, since claim covers “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing program instructions for transmitting a bitstream, the program instructions comprising”, followed by generic instructions for transmitting a bitstream, with specific limitations for generating a bitstream.
Said discloses transmitting a bitstream in [0040] using an output interface [0040], “Output interface 22 may comprise various types of components or devices. For example, output interface 22 may comprise a wireless transmitter, a modem, a wired networking component (e.g., an Ethernet card), or another physical component. In examples where output interface 22 comprises a wireless transmitter, output interface 22 may be configured to transmit data, such as encoded video data, modulated according to a cellular communication standard, such as 4G, 4G-LTE, LTE Advanced, 5G, and the like”.
Said further discloses generating a bitstream, in [0116].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although the prior art, specifically Said, discloses updating a probability model for a syntax element of a current block based on a prediction mode of an adjacent block (See [0125]), none of the prior art discloses or suggests that it would have been obvious before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to perform this update based on a determination as to whether the adjacent block is coded using a matrix weighted intra prediction, because none of the prior art prior to the applicant’s effective filing date makes mention of using a matrix intra prediction/matrix-weighted intra prediction.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights