DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 19, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending and are examined.
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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,290,737 (the ‘737 patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1-5 of the ‘737 patent and claims 1-7 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘737 patent:
Instant Application
The ‘737 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of a residual coefficient from a bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when the non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 3: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 5: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value; …
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 7: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
1. Limitation 8: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,732 (the ‘732 patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 2, 4, and 6 of the ‘732 patent and claims 1, 4, and 7 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 2 of the ‘732 patent:
Instant Application
The ‘732 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of a residual coefficient from a bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when the non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 3: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 5: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value; …
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
2. …one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood these “one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags” indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than “one or more values” to include a second (i.e., one or more) adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third (i.e., one or more) value.
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
2. …one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value.
As claim 2 is directed to one or more of such flags, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this could include both the second flag above and additional such flags.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/087,265 (the ‘265 application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14-15 of the ‘265 application and claims 1-7 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 2 of the ‘265 application:
Instant Application
The ‘265 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of a residual coefficient from a bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when the non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information…,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value; …
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
2. … one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/334,649 (the ‘649 application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1-5 of the ‘649 application and claims 1-7 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘649 application:
Instant Application
The ‘649 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of a residual coefficient from a bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when the non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value; …
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/334,673 (the ‘673 application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 2-3 and 6-7 of the ‘673 application and claims 1-7 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 2 of the ‘673 application:
Instant Application
The ‘673 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of a residual coefficient from a bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 1: parsing absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when the non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero; and
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information,
1. Limitation 2: determining the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information…,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 3: wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value,
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 4: a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value;
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 5: a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value,
1. Limitation 6: a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value,
2. …one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood these “one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags” indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than “one or more values” to include a second (i.e., one or more) adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third (i.e., one or more) value.
1. Limitation 7: one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
2. …one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value.
As claim 2 is directed to one or more of such flags, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this could include both the second flag above and additional such flags.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0068206 (“Hsiang”) which corresponds to a provisional application dated August 24, 2018 in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0007873 (“Coban”), which corresponds to a provisional application dated July 2, 2018.
With respect to claim 1, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A video decoding method (see Abstract, Figs. 7 and 8, item 790, showing a video decoder for performing a video decoding method) comprising the steps:
parse absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient from the bitstream when a non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero (see ¶¶10, 28-29, 34-37, 39, Table 2, item Gt1_flag, describing parsing the Gt1 (coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag or rem_abs_gt1_flag) (which is 1 if absLevel is greater than 1), i.e., absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient, and that this is done when sig_coeff_flag is not equal to 0, i.e., non-zero flag indicates that the residual coefficient is non-zero); and
determine the absolute value of the residual coefficient based on the absolute value information (see ¶¶34-37, Table 2, item Abs_Level, describing determining the absLevel based on Gt1_flag, i.e., based on the absolute value information),
wherein
the absolute value information comprises a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value (see ¶¶36-37, 54, Table 2, item Gt1_flag, describing Gt1_flag (coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag or rem_abs_gt1_flag) and that it is equal to 1 if absLevel is greater than 1, otherwise it is equal to 0, i.e., is a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value),
a parity flag is further parsed from the bitstream only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value (see ¶¶35-37, 54, Table 2, item Par_flag, describing parsing a par_level_flag from the bitstream when abs_level is greater than 1, i.e., only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value),
a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value (see ¶¶35-37, 54, Table 2, describing a Gt2_flag (coeff_abs_level_rs1_gt2_flag or rem_abs_gt2_flag), i.e., first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag, that indicates whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by downward shifting the residual coefficient by 1 is greater than 3, i.e., a second value, and that this is parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than 1, i.e., the first value),
…
one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values … (see ¶¶35-37, 54, Table 2, describing a Rem_abs, i.e., an adjusted coefficient comparison flag, that indicates whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values, e.g., 5 in Table 2).
Hsiang uses only 2 levels plus parity and remainder to signal the Abs Level, i.e., it does not explicitly disclose a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the second value and that the remainder is signaled when the second adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Coban discloses that it was known to use more than 2 levels to indicate the AbsLevel value, e.g., 3 levels, 4 levels, or X levels, and adjust the remainder level value accordingly (see ¶¶23, 83, 116, describing that the encoder may signal coefficient values by, in addition to signaling a significance flag, gt1 flag, gt2 flag, sign value, parity value, remainder value, additional gt level value flags may be signaled, e.g., gt3, gt4, gtX).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the signaling of values in different 1 bit flags to indicate a numerical value, e.g., coefficient level, including using a flag to indicate whether the coefficient level is non-zero, a parity flag to indicate whether the value is even or odd, and various greater-than flags and a remaining value to indicate additional values (see citations and arguments with respect to Hsiang and Coban above). Such a person would also have understood that a simple increase in the number of greater-than flags would result in the ability to signal a higher Abs Level with a minimal coding cost (1 additional bit for each additional flag). Accordingly, such a person would have been motivated to include an increased number of greater-than flags for signaling Abs Level, as taught by Coban, in the coding system of Hsiang, in order to obtain this benefit. In addition, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Where one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing were to expand the teachings of Hsiang to include additional levels, as described in Coban above, such a person would have understood that the addition of, e.g., a gtX, in addition to gt1 and gt2 (as taught by Coban) to Hsiang’s Table 2 would naturally expand Hsiang’s Table 2 to include the ability to signal more Abs Levels, including, (in addition to using Sig_flag to signal whether the Abs level is >0, Gt1_flag to signal whether the Abs Level is >1, Par_flag to signal whether the Abs Level is even or odd, and Gt2_flag to signal whether the Abs Level is >3) a Gt_X flag indicating whether the Abs Level is > X, and Rem_abs to signal whether the Abs Level is > X+2, i.e., a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag (gtX_flag) indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value (X) is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the second value (3), and one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further parsed when the second adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value (X).
Examiner also notes that, although Coban’s flag gtX does not explicitly indicate that it is a remnant flag, Applicant’s own specification makes clear that the use of a gtX type flag, indicating whether the absolute value of the residual coefficient is greater than X, is a known and insignificantly different alternative to the use of a rem_abs_gtX – type of flag (see ¶¶600, 645).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further parsed when the residual coefficient is greater than the second value and that Hsiang’s remainder is signaled when the second adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value in the coding system of Hsiang as taught by Coban, as detailed above.
With respect to claim 2, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Hsiang in view of Coban discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Hsiang/Coban additionally discloses:
wherein
a residual value information is further parsed when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value, and
the residual value information includes a value obtained by subtracting the second value from the adjusted remnant coefficient (see Hsiang ¶¶31, 39, Table 2, item Rem_abs, describing coeff_abs_level_rs1_remainder, i.e., a residual value information, that may be parsed when coeff_abs_level_rs1_gt2_flag is equal to 1, i.e., indicates the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value, and that coeff_abs_level_rs1_remainder is the remaining absolute value of the coefficient level when coeff_abs_level_rs1_gt2_flag is equal to 1, i.e., it may be obtained by subtracting the second value from the adjusted remnant coefficient).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Hsiang in view of Coban discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Hsiang/Coban additionally discloses:
wherein the parity flag indicates whether the value of the residual coefficient is an even number or an odd number (see ¶¶35-37, 54, Table 2, item Par_flag, describing parsing a par_level_flag from the bitstream when abs_level is greater than 1 and that a parity bit indicates the parity of the absolute value of the transform coefficient level, i.e., whether the value of the residual coefficient is an even number or an odd number (Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood the term parity to mean whether a mathematical number is even or odd)).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Hsiang in view of Coban discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Hsiang/Coban additionally discloses:
A video encoding method (see Abstract, Figs. 4 and 5, showing a video encoder for performing a video encoding method) comprising the steps of:
encode absolute value information for determining an absolute value of the residual coefficient when the residual coefficient is non-zero (see citations and arguments with respect to element above and corresponding element of claim 1 above),
wherein
the absolute value information includes a residual coefficient comparison flag indicating whether the residual coefficient is greater than a first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a parity flag for the residual coefficient is further encoded only when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a first adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient derived by bit-shifting the residual coefficient to the right by 1 is greater than a second value is further encoded when the residual coefficient is greater than the first value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a second adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flag indicating whether an adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than a third value is further encoded when the residual coefficient is greater than the second value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
one or more adjusted remnant coefficient comparison flags indicating whether the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than one or more values are further encoded when the second adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the third value (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Hsiang in view of Coban discloses all the elements of independent claim 4. Hsiang/Coban additionally discloses:
wherein
residual value information is further encoded when the adjusted remnant coefficient is greater than the second value, and
the residual value information includes a value obtained by subtracting the second value from the adjusted remnant coefficient (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 2 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Hsiang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above Hsiang in view of Coban discloses all the elements of independent claim 4. Hsiang/Coban additionally discloses:
wherein the parity flag indicates whether the value of the residual coefficient is an even number or an odd number (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 3 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, claim 7 recites the elements of claim 4 in non-transitory computer-readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Hsiang discloses that its method may be embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream and programming that, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform a video encoding method to generate the bitstream (see Fig. 10, items 1010, 1030 and 1035, ¶¶76, 81, 84, 88, 96-98, 118-119, 121-122, 128, describing that the decoder may have an internal memory storing software instructions and a processor executing the stored instructions). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 3 also applies to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights