DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner considers whether 112(f) is invoked for claim 16. Namely, the claims refer to a “video coder circuit configured to perform operations”. Review of this language notes that claimed video coder circuit is a structural term and relates hardware, meaning that the claimed video coder circuity does not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Review of the limitations also considered the limitation for single means claim language. A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose is held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor. However, upon review of the specification, ¶113 and 142 describes hardware implementation and supports description of the claimed circuit of modules while also supporting software instruction executed by one or more processing units of a computing device. This description provides enough support to avoid rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, the claimed inventions refer to “the current block” without initially disclosing “a current block”, rendering it unclear what the current block claimed refers to. Because of this, the limitation is indefinite. At best, “the current block” appears to refer to the “transform block” received in the previous limitations. For the purposes of examination, “the current block” referred to as “the transform
Claim 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, the limitations refer to “B bits” without explanation as to what “B” relates to, rendering the limitation unclear and ambiguous. Because of this lack of clarity, the claim limitation is indefinite. Upon review of the limitation, it appears to be a function value and most likely associated with a variable number value. Contextually, it is similar to the previously claimed added or subtracted “N” with “N being a positive integer” which is clear and defines its expression “N”. With this in mind, for the purposes of examination, “B bits” will be interpreted as “B bits, where B is a positive integer”.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,8,16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1)
Regarding claim 1, De Lagrange teaches,
A video coding method (¶36-45 and fig. 2-3, “HEVC” as a “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)” encoder 200 and decoder 300 depicted in fig. 2-3) comprising:
receiving quantization indices for a transform block; (¶87,63, and 45, “transform block is identified by one single parameter matrixId”, i.e., (QM index) indicating a quantization matrix (QM), “for scaling”)
applying a dequantization function (¶87, “dequantization of a transform block is identified by one single parameter matrixId”) on the quantization index (¶87, “parameter matrixId” being a unified matrixId (QM index))
shifting the quantization index (¶151, “ScalingMatrix [matrixId]”) by an amount determined based on a coding information of the current block (¶151,134,95-99, “ScalingMatrix [matrixId]” derived based on “ScalingMatrix[matrixId][x][y]= refScalingMatrix[i][j]” where the refMatrixSize “matches the size of refScalingMatrix”) to generate a shifted quantization index; (¶151,134,95, “ScalingMatrix[matrixId][x][y]= refScalingMatrix[i][j]” where the refMatrixSize matches the size of refScalingMatrix with the “range of i and j variables”)
applying the dequantization function (¶151, “ScalingMatrix [matrixId]”) on the shifted quantization index (¶151 and 94-99, ScalingMatrix [matrixId] representing “QM coefficients in a 2D matrix according to a scanning order” with a same size of range “i and j variables”) to obtain a second dequantized value; (¶151, QM derivation process to “obtain the quantization matrix m[ ][ ] for de-quantizing a transform block”)
But does not explicitly teach,
obtaining a first dequantized value;
computing a reconstructed transform coefficient of the transform block based on a weighted sum of the first dequantized value and the second dequantized value; and
reconstructing a current block of pixels of a current picture based on the reconstructed transform coefficients of the transform block.
However, Zhao teaches additionally,
applying a dequantization function in obtaining a first dequantized value; (¶149 and fig. 5, “inverse quantization unit 154” depicted in fig. 5 may “inverse quantize, i.e., de-quantize, coefficient blocks associated with the TU” which includes a first coefficient block)
obtaining a second dequantized value; (¶149 and fig. 5, “inverse quantization unit 154” depicted in fig. 5 may “inverse quantize, i.e., de-quantize, coefficient blocks associated with the TU” which includes a second coefficient block)
computing a reconstructed transform coefficient of the transform block (¶149 and fig. 5, “inverse transform processing unit 156” depicted in fi. 5 may “apply one or more inverse transforms to the coefficient block in order to generate a residual block associated with the TU”) based on a weighted sum of the first dequantized value and the second dequantized value; (¶163,149, and fig. 5, generate a residual block associated with the TU as part of a “reconstruction operation on a TU of a CU” using linear combination which may be a “weighted sum” with determined/stored respective weights of a “dequantized” transform coefficients) and
reconstructing a current block of pixels of a current picture (¶152,50, and fig. 5, reconstruction unit 158 depicted in fig. 5 may “reconstruct the coding blocks” of the CU of corresponding coding blocks “of a picture”) based on the reconstructed transform coefficients of the transform block. (¶152 and fig. 5, “reconstruction unit 158 may add samples of the transform blocks” to corresponding samples of the predictive blocks to “reconstruct the coding blocks” of the CU)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao that determines weights of dequantized transform coefficients. This allows for improved hypothesis precision.
Regarding claim 8, De Lagrange with Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 2,
Zhao teaches additionally,
the weighted sum (¶163 and 210, “calculate the weighted sum” using respective weights of “dequantized” transform coefficient) comprises weighting the first dequantized value by a first weighting value (¶210 and 149, “calculate a weighted sum” of the set of “residual samples” with an assigned “respective weight to teach” residual sample that includes a first coefficient block) and weighting the second dequantized value by a second weighting value. (¶210 and 149, “calculate a weighted sum” of the set of “residual samples” with an assigned “respective weight to teach” residual sample that includes a second coefficient block)
Regarding claim 16, it is the electronic apparatus claim of method claim 1.
De Lagrange teaches additionally,
An electronic apparatus (¶36-45,25, and fig. 1-3, “HEVC” as a “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)” encoder 200 and decoder 300 depicted in fig. 2-3 as implemented by an “encoder/decoder module 130” depicted in fig. 1) comprising:
a video coder circuit configured to perform operations (¶25 and fig. 1, “encoder/decoder module 130”, depicted in fig. 1, that includes its own processor and memory to perform “encoding and/or decoding functions”) comprising:
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, it is a method similar to method claim 1.
De Lagrange teaches additionally,
generating quantization indices (¶45, “quantization matrices” used in scaling transform coefficients “by a quantization matrix (QM)”) based on transform coefficients of a transform block; (¶87,63, and 45, “transform block is identified by one single parameter matrixId”, i.e., (QM index) indicating a quantization matrix (QM), “for scaling”)
Zhao teaches additionally,
encoding one or more subsequent blocks of pixels based on the reconstructed current block. (¶163 and 153, “reconstructed residual blocks of the stored reconstructed residual blocks to reconstruct the current TB” using previously-reconstructed blocks for subsequent “motion compensation, intra prediction, and presentation”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao that determines weights of dequantized transform coefficients. This allows for improved hypothesis precision. Refer to rejection of claim 17 to teach the additional limitations of claim 16.
Claim(s) 2,4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1) in view of BROSS; Benjamin et al. (US 20220103820 A1)
Regarding claim 2, De Lagrange with Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 2,
Bross teaches additionally,
shifting the quantization index (¶38-40 and 27, “modify the initial quantization accuracy” of an “index out of a quantization parameter list” defined by levelScale[ ]={40, 45, 51, 64, 72}) comprises adding N to or subtracting N from the quantization index, (¶38-40, modify the initial quantization accuracy by “adding the offset value to the index or by subtracting the offset value from the index”) N being a positive integer. (¶38-40, offset value for each transform mode “from a list of offset values” so that quantization of the is to the “nearest integer”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao with the index of Bross which is added to or subtracted from by an offset. The offset selection can increase compression efficiency or reduce the bitrate for a given quality/distortion.
Regarding claim 4, De Lagrange with Zhao with Bross teaches the limitations of claim 2,
Bross teaches additionally,
N is signaled into a video bitstream, (¶38, “offset value can be obtained from a list of offset values”)
Regarding claim 5, De Lagrange with Zhao with Bross teaches the limitations of claim 4,
Bross teaches additionally,
N is a value indicated at a particular hierarchical level of the video bitstream (¶10, “QP signalling is typically performed hierarchically, i.e. a base QP is signalled at a higher level in the bitstream”)
Regarding claim 6, De Lagrange with Zhao with Bross teaches the limitations of claim 2,
Bross teaches additionally,
N (¶38, “offset value”) is predefined at a video decoder and a video encoder. (¶38, “offsetting the initial quantization accuracy using an offset value, dependent on the selected transform mode” wherein the “encoder and/or the decoder is configured to determine the offset value for each transform mode”)
Claim(s) 3,7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1) in view of BROSS; Benjamin et al. (US 20220103820 A1) in view of Srinivasan; Ranga Ramanujam et al. (US 20140064366 A1)
Regarding claim 3, De Lagrange with Zhao with Bross teaches the limitations of claim 2,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Srinivasan teaches additionally,
N is a positive integer greater than one. (¶114-123, “shift is defined” for quantization parameter (Qp) ranges such that “Qp=12 to 17, shift=2”, “Qp=18 to 23, shift=3”, “Qp=24 to 29, shift=4”, “Qp=30 to 35, shift=5”, “Qp=36 to 41, shift=6”, “Qp=42 to 47, shift=7”, and “Qp 48 to 51, shift=8”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao with the index of Bross with the shift of Srinivasan which relates shifts to a quantization model. This allows for reduced complexity based on simplified quantization and transform.
Regarding claim 7, De Lagrange with Zhao with Bross teaches the limitations of claim 2,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 7,
However, Srinivasan teaches additionally,
N is determined (¶114-123, “shift is defined”) based on the value of the quantization index. (¶114-123, “shift is defined” for quantization parameter (Qp) ranges such that “Qp=12 to 17, shift=2”, “Qp=18 to 23, shift=3”, “Qp=24 to 29, shift=4”, “Qp=30 to 35, shift=5”, “Qp=36 to 41, shift=6”, “Qp=42 to 47, shift=7”, and “Qp 48 to 51, shift=8”)
Claim(s) 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1) in view of Huang; Han et al. (US 20220201322 A1)
Regarding claim 9, De Lagrange with Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 9,
However, Huang teaches additionally,
computing the reconstructed transform coefficient (¶158 and fig. 7, resulting block “intermediate (int.) prediction block 410” depicted in fig. 7) comprises bitwise shifting the weighted sum by B bits. (¶158, “perform bitwise left-shift operations according to the values of the respective weights” such as up to 3 bits)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao with the weighted prediction of Huang which applies a bitwise shift to weighted samples. This weighting allows for assigning more weight to some samples than others that reduces processing requirements and signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 10, De Lagrange with Zhao with Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9,
Huang teaches additionally,
B (¶158, “perform bitwise left-shift operations”) and the first and second weighting values (¶158, “apply weight W.sub.1 406 to samples of first bi-prediction block 402 and weight W.sub.2 408 to samples of second bi-prediction block 404”) are determined based on coding information of the current block. (¶158 and 155, “perform bitwise left-shift operations according to the values of the respective weights” up to 3 bits for “weighted samples of first bi-prediction block 402 with the weighted samples of second bi-prediction block 404 of the “current block”)
Claim(s) 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1) in view of Huang; Han et al. (US 20220201322 A1) in view of LIM; Sung Chang et al. (US 20190297325 A1)
Regarding claim 11, De Lagrange with Zhao with Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 11,
However, Lim teaches additionally,
B and the first and second weighting values (¶407, index information for specifying “single or more weighting factor candidates, or a single or more offset candidates” that is entropy encoded/decoded) are indicated at a particular hierarchical level of a coded video bitstream. (¶407-408, “index information” specifying any one of “groups predefined in the encoding apparatus and the decoding apparatus” specifying a single or more “weighting factor” candidates and “the offset” entropy encoded/decoded at a “higher level such as video parameter set, sequence parameter set, picture parameter set, adaptation parameter set, slice header”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao with the weighted prediction of Huang with the predefined groups of Lim where an index for a predefined group specifies one or more weighting factors and offsets. This allows for a mapping capable of reducing the size of bitstream for encoding target symbols.
Regarding claim 12, De Lagrange with Zhao with Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 12,
However, Lim teaches additionally,
B and the first and second weighting values (¶407, index information for specifying “single or more weighting factor candidates, or a single or more offset candidates” that is entropy encoded/decoded) are predefined at a video decoder and a video encoder. (¶407, “index information” specifying any one of “groups predefined in the encoding apparatus and the decoding apparatus” specifying a single or more “weighting factor” candidates and “the offset”)
Regarding claim 13, De Lagrange with Zhao with Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 13,
However, Lim teaches additionally,
B and the first and second weighting values (¶407, index information for specifying “single or more weighting factor candidates, or a single or more offset candidates” that is entropy encoded/decoded) are determined based on the value of the quantization index. (¶407, “index information specifying any one of groups predefined” respectively for “a single or more weighting factor candidates, or a single or more offset candidates”)
Regarding claim 14, De Lagrange with Zhao with Huang teaches the limitations of claim 9,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 14,
However, Lim teaches additionally,
B and the first and second weighting values (¶407, index information for specifying “single or more weighting factor candidates, or a single or more offset candidates” that is entropy encoded/decoded) are signaled into the video bitstream. (¶407-408 and 74, weighting factor or the offset may be “entropy encoded/decoded in a block unit such as CTU, CU, PU, etc., or may be entropy encoded/decoded at a higher level such as video parameter set, sequence parameter set, picture parameter set, adaptation parameter set, slice header, etc.” of the bitstream)
Claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE LAGRANGE; Philippe et al. (US 20230232003 A1) in view of Zhao; Xin et al. (US 20180176582 A1) in view of WU; Guixing et al. (US 20090220163 A1)
Regarding claim 15, De Lagrange with Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 15,
However, Wu teaches additionally,
dequantization function (¶27, “indices must be dequantized”) comprises scaling the quantization index by a quantization step size (¶27, “indices must be dequantized by a corresponding quantization step size” where dequantization operation 102 by “multiplying each DCT index block 202 by a corresponding quantization step size matrix 204”) that is determined based on a coding information of the current block. (¶27, dequantization operation 102 such that “a DCT index block of size 8.times.8 will be multiplied by a quantization step size matrix also of size 8.times.8”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding design of De Lagrange with the weighted reconstruction of Zhao with the decoding of Wu which multiplies a block by a step size matrix. This allows for reducing the complexity inherent to compression and scaling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights