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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on April 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12 & 16 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15 & 17 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 04/06/2026, page 2-3, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 6 & 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or first paragraph, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification, especially paragraphs [0053] & [0085], does not say, “storing, in a memory, a first kernel of a list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels and not storing another kernel of the list of low frequency non-separable transform kernels.” While the Examiner concurs Paragraph [0053] in the Specification recites, “a faster encoder may be obtained by using only the first kernel of LFNST. Beside saving the encoder time, this reduces the memory requirement for the encoder as half of the kernels are removed,” the Examiner does not explicitly see this, nor anywhere else in the Specification, of resembling the step of, “storing, in a memory, a first kernel of a list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels.” Thus the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), first paragraph, is maintained.
Applicant's remarks filed 04/06/2026, page 3-5 regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 6 & 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first asserts that He is directed to an entirely different and unrelated technical problem, and thus is improper to combine with Koo, Jung, and Koo2.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP § 2141.01 (a) I, where stated: The Examiner must determine what is "analogous prior art" for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. "In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of an Applicant's invention, the reference must either be in the field of Applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem."); Wang Laboratories Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 26 USPQ2d 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and State Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1069, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (where the general scope of a reference is outside the pertinent field of endeavor, the reference may be considered analogous art if subject matter disclosed therein is relevant to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved). Both He and the instant application are classified in the same USPC classification, which is USPC 375/240.02, and therefore are in the same field of endeavor as each other, and thus proper to combine. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have identified and considered other known teachings in the video encoding technology arts, and thus would have considered He’s teachings as known techniques in CABAC to entropy code a second bit of a two-bit value using a fixed context as taught in Paragraphs [0105]-[0107] supported in Paragraphs [0095]-[0097] in Provisional, wherein the second bin may be coded using one fixed context, and thus is pertinent to the problem being solved by the inventor. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Koo to implement the fixed context entropy coding in He, for it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply 1 bit fixed length coding using entropy coding to Koo’s encoding method with the predicted result of fixed length coding for entropy coding the context for the second bin, and thus would have a reasonable expectation of success combining the aforementioned references.
The Applicant then asserts that the combination of Koo and Jung teaches away from the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, In Paragraphs [147]-[148] of Jung, the sps_mts_intra_enabled_flag and sps_mts_inter_enabled_flag indicates that use of a transformation kernel other than the default transformation kernel is not permitted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Jung would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. In this particular case, applying the known technique in Jung of utilizing only one transformation kernel to Koo, in this case, leads to the predictable result of using only the LFNST transformation matrix in Koo. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Jung to the teachings of Koo would have yielded predictable result of using only the first lfnst transform kernel because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate the use of only one transformation kernel into similar methods. Further, applying the use of only a LFNST transformation kernel to Koo with low-frequency non-separable transforms accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in increases in coding efficiency. It is further noted that 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). Furthermore, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); and Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., 82 F.4th 1371, 1381, 2023 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Although Oez [the prior art] used a white pigment with a cross-linking polymer, it does not discourage a skilled artisan from using the white pigment without a cross-linking polymer or lead the skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken in the Appealed Patents. Thus, Oez's disclosure is substantial evidence that supports the Board's finding that Oez does not teach away from the proposed combination.”).
Lastly, in response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore the rejection of claims 1, 6 & 12 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6 & 12, the Applicant amends the claim to include limitations of, “storing, in a memory, a first kernel of a list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels and not storing another kernel of the list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels.” While the Applicant indicates support is found in Paragraphs [0053] & [0085] in the published application, the Examiner has found no such support for such newly-added limitations. Furthermore, no support is found for newly-claimed limitations of, “wherein a second bit of the two-bit value is entropy coded using a fixed context.” Therefore, the claim is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement as introducing new matter.
Dependent claims 4, 9 & 16 fall accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2022/0086448 A1, with provisional benefit to 62/863,833) (hereinafter Koo) in view of Jung et al. (WO 2020/050702 A1) (hereinafter Jung), further in view of Koo et al. (US 2021/0218996 A1, with provisional benefit to 62/658,607) (hereinafter Koo2), and further in view of He et al. (US 2021/0203947 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/724,500) (hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses a method for encoding [Paragraph [0167], Fig. 10, method for encoding], the method comprising:
storing, in a memory, a first kernel of a list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels [Paragraph [0073], [0095]-[0096], [0124], supported in pgs. 48, 96, 136 & 147, bitstream information including residual information containing LFNST transformation matrix index stored in memory];
determining if a low-frequency non-separable transform should be applied to a current block of a picture [Paragraph [0121]-[0123], Table 2, supported in pgs. 29-30 in provisional, transform kernel set of LFNST determined based upon intra prediction mode]; and responsive to the determining: when a low-frequency non-separable transform should be applied [Paragraph [0121]-[0123], Table 2, supported in pgs. 29-30 in provisional, transform kernel set of LFNST determined based upon intra prediction mode]:
applying the low-frequency non-separable transform on at least one transform coefficient issued from a primary transform applied to the current block [Paragraph [0154] & [0159]-[0161], supported in pgs. 138 in provisional, The result (or part of the result) obtained after applying the forward primary (core) transform is input, and the forward secondary transform is applied], wherein the low-frequency non-separable transform uses a first kernel [Paragraph [0124], [0177]-[0178], [0207]-[0208], supported in pgs. 136 & 147 in provisional, lfnst index value 0 may indicate that the first non-separable secondary transform is not applied to the target block, and lfnst index values 1 to 3 may indicate the three transform kernels, wherein lfnst index of 1 is represents a first kernel in a selected transform set as list]; and
encoding information representative of the low-frequency non-separable transform [Paragraph [0177]-[0178], [0207]-[0208], supported in pgs. 147 in provisional, coding of LFNST index] as a two-bit value equal to "10" using entropy coding [Paragraph [0177]-[0178], [0207], supported in pgs. 147 in provisional, Which lfnst matrix (kernel) to select from among the two matrices constituting the selected transform set is derived through index signaling. More specifically, 0, 1, and 2 are possible as the transmitted index value, with the LFNST index consists of up to two bins (two-bit), and 0, 10, and 11 are assigned as binary codes for possible LFNST index values of 0, 1, and 2, respectively]; and
when a low-frequency non-separable transform should not be applied, encoding information representative of the low-frequency non-separable transform as a one-bit value equal to "0" using entropy coding [Paragraph [0124], [0177]-[0178], [0207]-[0208], supported in pgs. 136 & 147 in provisional, lfnst index value 0 may indicate that the first non-separable secondary transform is not applied to the target block, and 0, 10, and 11 are assigned as binary codes for possible LFNST index values of 0, 1, and 2, respectively].
However, Koo does not explicitly disclose wherein the low-frequency non-separable transform always uses the first kernel.
Jung teaches wherein the low-frequency non-separable transform always uses the first kernel [Paragraph [147]-[148], sps_mts_intra_enabled_flag and sps_mts_inter_enabled_flag indicating that use of a transformation kernel other than the default transformation kernel is not permitted].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Koo to implement the usage of a basic transformation kernel of Jung as above, for coding efficiency of video signals to increase, and additionally determine a transform kernel suitable for the current transform block may be selected (Jung, Paragraph [20]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Jung would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved method. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Jung to the teachings of Koo would have yielded predictable result of using only the first lfnst transform kernel because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate the use of only a default transformation kernel into similar methods. Further, applying the use of only a default transformation kernel to Koo with low-frequency non-separable transforms accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in increases in coding efficiency.
Next, Koo and Jung do not explicitly disclose storing, in a memory, a first kernel and not storing another kernel of the list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels.
Koo2 teaches of storing, in a memory, a first kernel and not storing another kernel of the list of low-frequency non-separable transform kernels [Paragraph [0318] supported in Pg. 18 in Provisional, only a transform kernel for (CN II)T is actually stored, and as a result, it is possible to reduce the memory space.].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Koo to implement the usage of storing of transformation kernel for (CN II)T in Koo2, for it is possible to reduce the memory space (Koo2, Paragraph [0318]).
Lastly, Koo, Jung, and Koo2 do not explicitly disclose wherein a second bit of the two-bit value is entropy coded using a fixed context.
He teaches wherein a second bit of the two-bit value is entropy coded using a fixed context [Paragraph [0105]-[0107] supported in Paragraphs [0095]-[0097] in Provisional, The second bin may be coded using one fixed context. Or it can coded with 1 bit fixed length coding, using entropy coding techniques including CABAC].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Koo to implement the fixed context entropy coding in He, for it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply 1 bit fixed length coding using entropy coding to Koo’s encoding method with the predicted result of fixed length coding for entropy coding the context for the second bin.
Regarding claim 6, device claim 6 is drawn to the device using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, device claim 6 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Koo discloses a device for encoding [Paragraph [0056]-[0057] & [0337], supported in pgs. 2 & 167 in provisional, video coding/decoding device comprising processor], comprising: a memory configured to store; and one or more processors [Paragraph [ [0337], supported in pgs. 2 & 167 in provisional, video coding/decoding device comprising processor and memory].
Regarding claim 12, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code instructions claim 12 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Koo further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the steps of method claim 1 [Paragraph [0056]-[0057] & [0337]-[0339], supported in pgs. 2, 14 & 167 in provisional, video coding/decoding device comprising processor and executing modules as computer code in memory comprising a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM, a RAM, a CD-ROM, a magnetic tape, a floppy disk, and an optical data storage device as non-transitory computer readable medium].
Claims 4, 9 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2022/0086448 A1, with provisional benefit to 62/863,833) (hereinafter Koo), Jung et al. (WO 2020/050702 A1) (hereinafter Jung), Koo et al. (US 2021/0218996 A1, with provisional benefit to 62/658,607) (hereinafter Koo2), and He et al. (US 2021/0203947 A1 with provisional benefit to 62/724,500) (hereinafter He) in view of Pfaff et al.; “Non-CE3: Harmonization of 8-Bit MIP with Unified-MPM and LFNST;” Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3-12 July 2019, JVET-O0485-r2 (hereinafter Pfaff).
Regarding claim 4, Koo, Jung, and Koo2 disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Koo, Jung, and Koo2 do not explicitly disclose the particulars of claim 4.
Pfaff teaches wherein an intra prediction mode used for the current block is a matrix intra based-prediction mode [Section 2 Alignment with LFNST, here, if MIP and LFNST are to be used on such a block, the MIUP mode is treated as a conventional intra prediction mode].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Koo to add and/or substitute the MIP modes for conventional intra prediction modes of Pfaff as above, to yield BD-rate savings and lower encoder runtimes (Pfaff, Abstract & Conclusion).
Regarding claim 9, device claim 9 is drawn to the device using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 4. Therefore, device claim 9 corresponds to method claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 16, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code instructions claim 16 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 4, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights