Notice of Pre-AIA 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 .
Response to Arguments
2. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). On page 7, Applicant argued that Zhao fails to disclose “determining whether a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on a comparison of the partitioning depth and a threshold that is 0 and a shape of the block.” However, as explained in the rejection below, CHIANG in view of Chen teaches the limitation “determining whether a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on a comparison of the partitioning depth and a threshold that is 0 and a shape of the block.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2017/0094314) in view of CHIANG et al. (US 2022/0159300) hereinafter “CHIANG further in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0230421) previously cited by the Examiner, hereinafter “Chen”.
As per claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for video decoding in a decoder (Abstract; fig. 9), the method comprising: decoding coding information for a block from a coded video bitstream, the coding information indicating an intra prediction mode for the block (fig. 9; paragraph 0214, Entropy decoding unit 270 of video decoder 30 entropy decodes the bitstream to generate quantized coefficients, motion vectors or intra-prediction mode indicators, and other syntax elements) and a partitioning depth for the block (paragraph 0065, Syntax data associated with a coded bitstream may define a maximum number of times a treeblock may be split, referred to as a maximum CU depth, and may also define a minimum size of the coding nodes), the partitioning depth indicating whether the block is a root of a transform block partition structure (paragraphs 0064 and 0101);
reconstructing the block based on the secondary transform being disabled for the block (fig. 9; paragraphs 0010, 0105 and 0170-0173, video decoder reconstructs the current block by using the set of residual samples and the set of prediction samples; one particular secondary transform, they (the coefficients of the TU) are de-quantized and then inverse transformed to generate the reconstructed residuals…Similarly, video encoder 20 may omit generating, in an encoded video bitstream, data indicative the transform skip mode and generates, in an encoded video bitstream, data indicative of the secondary transform; see also paragraphs 0123 and 0174-0175. Paragraphs 0155-0156, video encoder 20 may determine whether to encode an index of a secondary transform (e.g., non-separable secondary transform 106) in a bitstream…video decoder 30 may determine whether an index of a secondary transform (e.g., non-separable inverse transform 158) is signaled in a bitstream. See also paragraph 0109, In EMT, a CU-level flag may be signaled to indicate whether only the conventional DCT-2 or other non-DCT2 type transforms are used).
However, Zhao does not explicitly disclose determining whether a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on a comparison of the partitioning depth and a threshold that is 0 and a shape of the block; and when (i) the partitioning depth for the block is larger than the threshold that is 0 indicating that the block is partitioned into multiple transform blocks and (ii) the shape of the block is a non-square rectangle, disabling the secondary transform for the block.
In the same field of endeavor, CHIANG in view of Chen disclose determining whether a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on a comparison of the partitioning depth and a threshold that is 0 (CHIANG teaches in paragraph 0052 that transform operation or inverse transform operation for one or more TUs in a current CU excludes secondary transform or inverse secondary transform based on a number of TUs in the current CU. For example, the transform operation excludes secondary transform when the number of TUs in the current CU is larger than one, on the other hand, Chen teaches in FIGs 5A-5B and paragraphs 0096-0097 that the number of TUs in the current CU is larger than one when the partitioning depth is larger than 0. Therefore, CHIANG in view of Chen disclose determining that a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on the partitioning depth for the block being larger than 0) and a shape of the block (paragraph 0050 or CHIANG, residuals of a current block are not processed by secondary transform if any of a width or height of the current block is larger than 64 samples, so any block with a size larger than 64×64 is not processed by secondary transform); and when (i) the partitioning depth for the block is larger than the threshold that is 0 indicating that the block is partitioned into multiple transform blocks and (ii) the shape of the block is a non-square rectangle, disabling the secondary transform for the block (CHIANG teaches in paragraph 0052 that transform operation or inverse transform operation for one or more TUs in a current CU excludes secondary transform or inverse secondary transform based on a number of TUs in the current CU. For example, the transform operation excludes secondary transform when the number of TUs in the current CU is larger than one, on the other hand, Chen teaches in FIGs 5A-5B and paragraphs 0096-0097 that the number of TUs in the current CU is larger than one when the partitioning depth is larger than 0. Therefore, CHIANG in view of Chen disclose determining that a secondary transform is disabled for the block based on the partitioning depth for the block being larger than 0. In addition, paragraph 0050 of CHIANG teaches residuals of a current block are not processed by secondary transform if any of a width or height of the current block is larger than 64 samples, so any block with a size larger than 64×64 is not processed by secondary transform. Thus, the secondary transform is not applied to 64x64 size blocks that have a width or height larger than 64, which means non-square rectangle blocks).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao, with those of CHIANG and Chen, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed all references describe conditions for applying a second transform, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, CHIANG and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claims 3 and 17, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 3 and 17; see also paragraphs 0012 and 0014 of CHIANG and paragraphs 0115 and 0155 of Zhao.
As per claims 11 and 21, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 11 and 21; in addition, Zhao discloses a width of the block and a height of the block being larger than a threshold size (paragraph 0168).
As per claim 13, Zhao discloses wherein one of a width W' of another block and a height H' of the other block is larger than a maximum transform size T (paragraph 0101, a root CB size is 64x64, which is larger than the maximum transform size of 32x32), and the method further includes splitting the other block into multiple subblocks that include the block, a width W of the block being a minimum of W' and T, a height H of the block being a minimum of H' and T (paragraph 0101, Consider a case in which a root CB size is 64×64, the maximum depth is equal to zero and the maximum transform size is equal to 32×32. In this case, the CB may be partitioned at least once, since otherwise it would lead to a 64×64 TB, which may not be allowed. It is clear that after partitioning the CB at least once, the CB size will be 32x32 or less).
As per claim 15, the claim is directed to an encoding method corresponding to the decoding method of claim 1; therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15. In addition, see Zhao (figs. 1, 8 and 12 and paragraphs 0196), CHIANG (fig. 8 and paragraphs 0045, 0076), regarding encoding method and apparatus.
As per claim 23, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 13 are applicable for claim 23.
As per claim 25, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 15 are applicable for claim 25; in addition, Zhao discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0229) and transmitting the video bitstream (paragraph 0048).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights