www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/503,524
`
`10/18/2021
`
`Yusuke KATO
`
`2021-2106A
`
`2481
`
`Cp
`Lind&
`Wenderoth,
`Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`PHILIPPE, GIMS $
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2424
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/14/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoa@ wenderoth.com
`kmiller@wenderoth.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/503,524
`KATOetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`GIMS $ PHILIPPE
`2424
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 16 November 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-12 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240208
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Applicant’s response received on November 16, 2023 has been fully considered and entered, but the
`
`arguments are not deemedto be persuasive.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`REMARKS
`
`2.
`
`The Applicant argues that claim 1 recites circuitry which “in residual coding of a current block,
`
`the circuitry, in operation, encodes a subblockflag by Context-based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding
`
`(CABAC)in both ofa first type of residual coding where an orthogonal transform is performed and a
`
`second type of residual coding where the orthogonal transform is skipped, the subblock flag indicating
`
`whether a non-zero coefficient is included in a plurality of coefficients for a subblock within the current
`
`block, wherein a first syntax used for the first type of residual codingis different from a second syntax
`
`used for the second type of residual coding; and controls a number of CABAC processes, wherein the
`
`encoding of the subblock flag is not counted as the number of CABAC processes.”.
`
`The Applicant added that the Examiner cited col. 6, lines 29-41, lines 55-67, col. 7, lines 1-20, col. 11,
`
`lines 32-40 and col. 13, lines 52-59 of Anderson and maintains that the prior art fails to even suggest the
`
`circuitry of claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 3
`
`While the Applicant noted the sections cited by the Examiner He/She did not make any specific
`
`argument instead of noting the Andersson does not meet the limitations. The sections cited by the
`
`Examiner must be analyzed by the Applicant in order to show the difference between the prior art cited
`
`and the claimed limitations.
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The Examiner clearly cited Fig. 22,
`
`with circuitry 124, and col. 31, lines 53-57. The Applicant must indicate the difference between the
`
`circuitry cited by the Examiner and his/her circuitry.
`
`In fact, the Applicant should use his Specification
`
`as well as the drawingsof the circuitry claimed to provide a proper comparison.
`
`Andersson disclosescircuits of Fig. 21 with guided transcoder 110, and transcoder 120 of Fig. 22 with
`
`hardware circuitry 124 and circuitry 125 along with processors 122 and 123. The Examiner urges the
`
`Applicant to read thecircuitry of Figs. 21 and 22 and make the proper comparison.
`
`Andersson discloses using CABAC as evidenced by Andersson’s col. 6, lines 63-67, col. 7, lines 1-6.
`
`From col. 6, line 63 to col 7, line 6, Andersson states that “The encoding of the significance map also
`
`comprises encoding significance flags (significant_coeff_flag) at each position along a scanning pattern
`
`indicating if a transform coefficient is non-zero or not. Then, magnitudes (coeff_abs_level_greater1_flag,
`
`coeff_abs_level_greater2_flag, coeff_abs_level_remaining) and signs (coeff_sign_flag) of the non-zero
`
`transform coefficients are encoded. The coding is performed to produce a codedbit stream using Context
`
`Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC). A general overview of transform coefficient coding can be
`
`found in [2].”
`
`Andersson discloses residual coding in col. 8, lines 18-25 where the claimed transform and skipping are
`
`discussed.
`
`In col 6, lines 30-41, Andersson discloses that “a difference between a source block ina
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 4
`
`picture of a video sequenceand its intra or inter predicted block, generally referred to as residual or
`
`residual block, is transform coded to obtain transform coefficients if a transform skip flag is set to O,
`
`otherwise the residual block is coded without a transform. After deriving transform coefficients or
`
`residual pixel values (if transform skip flag is set to 1) on the encoderside, quantization is applied. The
`
`quantization is controlled by a quantization parameter (QP). When the QPis high the transform
`
`coefficients or residual pixel values are quantized coarsely and when the QPis low the transform
`
`coefficients or residual pixel values are quantizedfinely.”
`
`The Applicant further argues that Andersson fails to disclose circuitry where “a first syntax used for the
`
`first type of residual codingis different from a second syntax used for the second type of residual
`
`coding.”
`
`The Applicant added that with regard to this feature, The Examiner cited col. 11, lines 32-40. The
`
`Applicant admits that Andersson merely describes syntax elements having different values according to
`
`whetherthe position of a non-zero delta quantized coefficient in the pixel block can be determined from
`
`the corresponding position of the non-zero estimated quantized coefficient. It does not, however,
`
`describe that "a first syntax usedfor the first type of residual coding is different from a second syntax
`
`used for the second type of residual coding," where an orthogonal transform is performedin the first
`
`type of residual coding and the orthogonal transform is skipped for the second type of residual coding.
`
`The Applicant keeps mentioning that Andersson does not meet the limitations, however, “merely
`
`”
`describe syntax elements having different values....”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 5
`
`The Examiner considers Andersson as meeting the limitations unless there is a clear effort to show the
`
`difference between the claimed limitation and the “merely describes syntax...” as argued by the
`
`Applicant.
`
`With regard to the claimed circuitry, Andersson col. 31, lines 63-67, col. 32, lines 1-2 discussed circuitry
`
`control. In addition, Andersson disclosescircuitry from col. 32, line 24 to col. 33, line 19.
`
`In addition, the results of the CABAC control are shownin Table 3 as seen in col. 24. And 7, lines 1-6
`
`discloses CABAC encoding.
`
`It is the Examiner’s belief that the Arguments were addressed. The Applicant copied the whole claim to
`
`indicate that the prior art does not teach the limitations. The Examiner urges the Applicant to select a
`
`limitation along with the cited portion of the reference in order to be more convincing.
`
`The rejection is repeated below for the sake of completeness.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`3.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
`
`under either status.
`
`4.
`
`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 —
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 6
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application
`for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effectivefiling date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`Andersson etal. (US Patent no. 10,735,735).
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 7, Andersson discloses an encoding method and encoder (See Andersson Fig. 1,
`
`Abstract, col. 2, lines 45-46) comprising: circuitry (See Andersson Fig. 22, circuit 124, col. 31, lines 53-57);
`
`and memory coupled to the circuitry (See Andersson col. 34, lines 10-13) , wherein in residual coding of
`
`a current block, the circuitry, in operation , encodesa subblock flag by Context-based Adaptive Binary
`
`Arithmetic Coding (CABAC) in both ofa first type of residual coding where an orthogonal transform is
`
`performed and a second type of residual coding where the orthogonal transform is skipped (See
`
`Andersson col. 6, lines 29-41, lines 55-67 and col. 7, lines 1-20) , the subblock flag indicating whether a
`
`non- zero coefficient is included in a plurality of coefficients for a subblock within the current block (See
`
`Andersson col. 6, lines 61-67, col. 7, lines 1-6), wherein a first syntax used for the first type of residual
`
`codingis different from a second syntax used for the second type of residual coding (See Andersson col.
`
`11, lines 30-42); and controls a number of CABAC processes, wherein the encoding of the subblock flag
`
`is not counted as the number of CABAC processes(See Andersson col. 6, lines 55-67, col. 7, lines 1-6,
`
`and col. 13, lines 52-59).
`
`As per claims 4-5 and 10-11, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above
`
`rejection of claims 1 and 7.
`
`In addition, Andersson further discloses wherein when the subblockflag is
`
`equal to zero, the circuitry assumesall the plurality of coefficients to be zero and does not encode the
`
`plurality of coefficients, and wherein when the subblock flag is equal to one, the plurality of coefficients
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 7
`
`include at least one non-zero coefficient and the circuitry encodes the plurality of coefficients by CABAC
`
`(See Andersson col. 14, lines 14-29, col. 15, lines 8-39).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
`
`under either status.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson etal.
`
`(US Patent no. 10,735,735) in view of Bjorklund et al. (US Patent Application Publication no.
`
`2019/0124331).
`
`Regarding claims 2-3 and 8-9, most of the limitations of these claims of these claims have been notedin
`
`the above rejection of claims 1 and 7.
`
`It is noted that although Andersson discloses indicating a location of a first non-zero coefficient
`
`in a scanning order within the current block (See Andersson col. 16, lines 64-67, col. 17, lines 1-16),it is
`
`silent about wherein the encoding of the location parameter is not counted as the number of CABAC
`
`processes, and a threshold value of the number of CABAC processes is configured depending on the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 8
`
`location of the first non-zero coefficient, and a same limitation on the number of CABAC processesis
`
`used in bothofthe first type of residual coding and the second typeof residual coding.
`
`However, Bjorklund teaches wherein the encoding of the location parameter is not counted as
`
`the number of CABAC processes, and a threshold value of the number of CABAC processesis configured
`
`depending on the location of the first non-zero coefficient, and a same limitation on the number of
`
`CABACprocessesis used in both of the first type of residual coding and the second typeof residual
`
`coding (See Bjorklund [0019], [0080], [0142], [0202] [0219]).
`
`Therefore,it is considered obvious that oneskilled in the art, before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Andersson to incorporate
`
`Bjorklund’s teachings wherein the encoding of the location parameter is not counted as the numberof
`
`CABACprocesses, and a threshold value of the number of CABACprocessesis configured depending on
`
`the location of the first non-zero coefficient, and a same limitation on the number of CABAC processesis
`
`used in bothofthe first type of residual coding and the second type of residual coding. The motivation
`
`for performing such a modification in Andersson is to maintain the state information for subblocks
`
`within the block during the encoding process.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson etal.
`
`(US Patent no. 10,735,735) in view of Galpin et al. (US Patent Application Publication no.
`
`2021/0392329).
`
`As per claims 6 and 12, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the aboverejection of
`
`claims 1 and 7.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 9
`
`It is noted that Andersson is silent about wherein the circuitry encodesthe plurality of
`
`coefficients by CABAC and counts the encoding of the plurality of coefficients as the number of CABAC
`
`processes.
`
`However, Galpin et al. teaches wherein the circuitry encodes the plurality of coefficients by
`
`CABAC and countsthe encoding of the plurality of coefficients as the number of CABAC processes (See
`
`Galpin [0179]-[0182]).
`
`Therefore,it is considered obvious that oneskilled in the art, before the effective filing date of
`
`the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Andersson’s encoding method to
`
`incorporate Galpin’s teachings wherein the circuitry encodes the plurality of coefficients by CABAC and
`
`counts the encoding of the plurality of coefficients as the number of CABAC processes. The motivation
`
`for performing such a modification in Andersson is to independently determine the probability model
`
`associated with the CABACprocess.
`
`10.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADEFINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
`
`in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory
`
`action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuantto 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing
`
`date of the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than
`
`SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/503,524
`Art Unit: 2424
`
`Page 10
`
`11.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached Maxi Flex.
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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,
`
`Jefferey F Harold can be reached on 571-272-7519. The fax phone number for the organization where
`
`this application or proceedingis 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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`/GIMS S PHILIPPE/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
`
`