DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB2553556A (Handford)
US 20210006796 A1 (Tsukuba)
Claim observation
Claim 1 requires receiving “first indication”. “second indication” and “third indication”. These are not required for claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter, Claim Objection
Claims 12-14 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 and the pending double patenting rejection is overcome.
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 2-19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “decoder is configured to zero values” in the last limitation. It is not clear what does mean. Examiner assumed “decoder is configured to effecting the zeroing of ……” as claimed in claim 20. Claim 21 have similar issues. Dependent claims 3-19 inherits this.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second parameter". But there is no first parameter. It assumed to be dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second parameter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed to be dependent upon claim 10 for examination purpose. Claims 12-14 depends on claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the enhancement decoder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed to be dependent upon claim 16 for examination purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. .
The claimed “bitstream” is a data per se and does not fall into any of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-11 & 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handford in view of Tsukuba.
Regarding Claims 1 & 20. Handford teaches a decoder/decoding method [(fig. 1, decoder device 110; fig 4B)] configured to decode a plurality of encoded streams into a reconstructed output video [(page 11, lines 25-29: lower and higher level, see also fig. 4B; page 36, lines 21-24)] , the decoder configured to: receive a first output video, the first output video comprising an output of a base decoder applied to a base level encoded stream [(422, 420 is lower level/base decoded data; Fig.4B, page 23, lines 26 to page 24 lines 10; the original video frames 406 are downsampled at 412 and processed at 413 to generate the encoded base layer; see also, e.g., page 13, lines 8-10)] : receive one or more further encoded streams[(page 23, lines 26-27: "set of A; correlation elements 426"; note that spatial correlation elements or temporal correlation elements are received from the encoder according to the result of the rate- distortion analysis, cf. page 27, line 1 to page 30, line 9 and fig. 6)] : decode respective frames of the one or more further encoded streams to derive respective sets of residuals [(fig. 4B, residuals 416)] , each frame of the respective frames being divided into a plurality of tiles [(page 12, lines 15-21)] and each tiles of the plurality of tiles being divided into a plurality of blocks: [((implied, e.g., by page 13, lines 8-10: H.264 uses blocks;)] and combine the sets of residuals with the first output video to generate the reconstructed output video [(page 24, lines 15-16 and fig. 4B: residuals 416 and upsampled data 414 are combined to reconstruct input data 406, i.e. the original video stream)] , wherein, to decode respective frames, the decoder is configured to: obtain, for each block of the plurality of blocks, a preliminary set of residuals from the one or more further encoded streams [(“fig 4B; temporal correlation elements 426 are obtained”)] : derive a set of temporal predictions using a temporal buffer [(spatial correlation elements 424 of the previous frame at t=t0 to predict current frame t=t1, see page 24, lines 4-5)] : and combine the set of temporal predictions with the preliminary set of residuals to output data for combination with the first output video [(page 24, lines 9-16)] : and wherein the decoder is configured to zero values of the set of temporal predictions:[(page 33, “This may correspond to a 'reset' of all or part of the buffer. Consequently, for a later time sample, t2, of the signal, the first buffer data retrieved from the buffer is zero” lines 10-15. Lines 1-7 “spatial correlation elements associated with the current time sample” but not previous time sample or no temporal correlation. “the set of spatial correlation elements replaces the previous buffer contents instead of being added to it.” )]
Handford does not explicitly show zeroing at a frame level, for at least one of the respective frames in response to receiving a first indication; at a tile level, for at least one of the plurality of tiles, in response to receiving a second indication; and at a block level, for at least one of the plurality of blocks, in response to receiving a third indication.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Tsukuba teaches at a frame level, for at least one of the respective frames in response to receiving a first indication; at a tile level, for at least one of the plurality of tiles, in response to receiving a second indication; and at a block level, for at least one of the plurality of blocks, in response to receiving a third indication. [(para 120, 118)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to improve coding efficiency and to provide more flexibility in controlling zeroing.
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claims 3. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to generate a first block of elements from a frame in the reconstructed output video without using a second block of elements from the frame in the reconstructed output video [(spatial correlation {i.e.} information from same frame may not be used {page 31 lines 30-33)] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 4. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to: obtain respective residual elements of a block of the plurality of blocks: and derive a respective temporal prediction of the set of temporal predictions from the temporal buffer for each of the respective residual elements. [(see page 24 lines 3-10 and analysis of claim 1)]
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 5. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is further configured to apply an entropy decoding operation to the one or more further encoded streams and to obtain the preliminary set of residuals by applying a de-quantization operation to the respective block, and applying an inverse transform operation to the respective block [(inverse transform{page 18, lines 25-27}; page 28, lines 3-6, quantization at encoder means inverse quantization at the decoder; entropy decoding is standard in most video coding such as H.264 {page 13 lines 8-9})] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 6. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to zero the values of the set of temporal predictions by refreshing at least a portion of the temporal buffer. [(Handford page 33, lines 8-13)]
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 7. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to zero the values of the temporal predictions in response to receiving a first parameter with a first value that indicates temporal processing is enabled [(Handford page 31 lines 15-32; indicator flag to indicate spatial or temporal correlation{lines 15-17} and based on that no/zero temporal prediction {lines 30-33}; Tsukuba para 120] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 8. The decoder of claim 7, wherein a bit-length of the first value of the first parameter is one bit [(flag is one bit ; also see page 29 lines 16-17 )] .
Tsukuba additionally teaches with respect to claim 9. The decoder of claim 7, wherein the first parameter is received once for a group of pictures associated with the plurality of encoded streams. [(para 120; sequence level/group of pictures)]
Tsukuba additionally teaches with respect to claim 10. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to: obtain a second parameter from data from the one or more further encoded streams for each respective block of the plurality of blocks: and set the values of the temporal predictions for the respective block of the plurality of blocks to zero in response to determining that the second parameter for the respective block has a second value that provides temporal signaling for the respective block. [(Tsukuba para 120)]
Tsukuba additionally teaches with respect to claim 11. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to refresh the temporal buffer for a tile of the plurality of tiles in response to receiving the second parameter for a specified block within the tile. [(Tsukuba para 120)]
Handford in view of Tsukuba additionally teaches with respect to claim 15. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder is configured to refresh values of the temporal buffer for a first tile of a frame of the respective frames and to zero values for the set of temporal predictions for a first block of a second tile of the frame without zeroing the values of the set of temporal predictions for a second block of the second tile [(Handford page 33 lines 12, Tsukuba para 120)] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 16. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the decoder comprises an enhancement decoder configured to receive residual data generated from a comparison of data derived from an input video and data derived from the base level encoded stream, wherein the one or more further encoded streams comprise encoded residual data that is decodable to reconstruct one or more further sets of residual data for application to the first output video[(Fig.4B & page 23; higher level data is enhancement decoder)] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 17. The decoder of claim 2, wherein the enhancement decoder is different from the base decoder [(Fig.4B higher level portion is different from lower-level portion)] .
Handford additionally teaches with respect to claim 18. The decoder of claim 2, wherein a set of transform coefficients for decoding a set of residuals for a first frame of the one or more further encoded streams represents a difference between the set of transform coefficients for the first frame and a further set of transform coefficients for a second frame of the one or more further encoded streams, different from the first frame [(temporal correlation {page 2 lines 27-29})] .
Handford in view of Tsukuba additionally teaches with respect to claim 19. The decoder of claim 2, wherein each frame of the respective frames is divided into a plurality of planes, each plane in the plurality of planes being divided into a plurality of tiles and each tile of the plurality of tiles being divided into a plurality of blocks. [(Tsukuba para 72, 94 indicates different color components/planes that is divided into region; regions can be tiles and blocks para 364-379)]
Regarding Claim 20-21: see analysis of claim 2
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12413767. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 20 is taught by patented claim 14. Claim 2 is taught by patented claim 1 bar the indications. However, given the patented claim is zeroing at picture, tile and block level at a decoder, receiving indications is obvious, as encoder providing these type of communication is well known in the art, as such communication provide efficient and proper encoding. Other claims are similarly obvious based on claims 1-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights