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 November 13, 2025.
Claim 1, 8 & 15-16 pending in the instant application.
Claim 1, 8 & 15 are amended.
Claims 2-7 & 9-14 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/13/2025, pages 7-9 with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 & 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and similarly the obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nalci et al. (US 2020/0396487 A1, with provisional benefit 62/861,828) (hereinafter Nalci) in view of Leleannec et al. (WO 2021/023552 A1) (hereinafter Leleannec) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s recited references do not teach, suggest, nor disclose Applicant's recited limitations, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of the independent claims 1, 8 & 15-16 where Applicant’s claim limitations are addressed by Leleannec and are rejected for the reasons as outlined below.
Therefore the rejection of claims 1, 8 & 15-16 is maintained under 35 USC 103. Furthermore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 8 & 15-16 is also maintained.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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.
Patent US 11,805,257 B2
Claims 1, 8 & 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,805,257 B2 in view of Leleannec et al. (WO 2021/023552 A1) (hereinafter Leleannec).
Instant – 17/761,794
US 11,805,257 B2
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
1. An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining residual information from a bitstream;
obtaining residual information from a bitstream;
deriving transform coefficients for a current block based on the residual information;
deriving transform coefficients for a current block based on the residual information;
deriving modified transform coefficients by applying a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) to the transform coefficients;
deriving modified transform coefficients by applying a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) based on an LFNST matrix related to an LFNST index to the transform coefficients;
deriving residual samples for the current block based on an inverse primary transform for the modified transform coefficients; and
deriving residual samples for the current block based on an inverse primary transform on the modified transform coefficients; and
generating a reconstructed picture based on the residual samples,
generating a reconstructed picture based on the residual samples,
wherein the current block is split into a plurality of sub-partition blocks as an intra sub-partitions (ISP) is applied,
wherein for the current block where the ISP mode is applied,
wherein the deriving the modified transform coefficients comprises:
deriving modified transform coefficients
parsing a single LFNST index for the current block based on a first condition or a second condition being satisfied; and
the LFNST index is parsed based on a non-zero transform coefficient being present in a region other than a DC position of the current block, and
deriving the modified transform coefficients based on an LFNST matrix indicated by the single LFNST index,
deriving modified transform coefficients by applying a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) based on an LFNST matrix related to an LFNST index to the transform coefficients;
wherein the first condition is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is equal to or larger than 4x4 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in second regions for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks,
wherein the second is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is 4x4 block or 8x8 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in a second region other than a region from a top-left of each sub-partition block to an 8th transform coefficient in a scan direction for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks,
wherein the single LFNST index for the current block is not parsed based on neither the first condition nor the second condition being satisfied.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the patent in that the instant application discloses the limitations of, wherein the current block is split into a plurality of sub-partition blocks, parsing a single LFNST index for the current block based on a first condition or a second condition being satisfied; wherein the first condition is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is equal to or larger than 4x4 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in second regions for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks, wherein the second is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is 4x4 block or 8x8 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in a second region other than a region from a top-left of each sub-partition block to an 8th transform coefficient in a scan direction for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks, wherein the single LFNST index for the current block is not parsed based on neither the first condition nor the second condition being satisfied.
However, these limitations are known in the art as evidenced by Leleannec, wherein Pgs. 12, ll. 4-10 & pgs. 15-16, ll. 25-6, Table 2, teach of the conditions regarding the decision whether the LFNST index is to be parsed for a TU are the same as the ones used conventionally: The CU size in the considered component is at least 4 in width and height, as being greater than or equal to 4x4 and block being of size 4x8 is neither 4x4 or 8x8; No non-zero quantized coefficient exists in a TU of the considered CU, in a 4x4 coding group other than the lowest frequency 4x4 coding group for a transform block of size at least 4x4, or with a scanning position greater than 7 in a square transform block of size equal to 4 or 8. 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 instant invention with implementing the LFNST as in Leleannec as above, for the usage of LFNST increases the coding efficiency of the video codec as Leleannec, discusses in Pg. 13, ll. 6-16.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is drawn to an image encoding method having limitations similar to the image decoding method of using the same as claimed in claims 1 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 8 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 15, transmission method claim 15 is drawn to a method having limitations similar to the image encoding method of using the same as claimed in claims 8 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, transmission method claim 15 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Nalci discloses of obtaining a bitstream for the image; and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream [Paragraph [0044]-[0047], supported in Paragraph [0022]-[0027] of Provisional, output interface 108 receives and transmits encoded bitstream]. 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 instant invention with implementing obtaining and transmission of bitstreams as in Nalci as above, to reduce the signaling overhead and improve coding efficiency as Nalci discusses in Paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 16, non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium claim 16 is drawn to a method having limitations similar to the image encoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 8 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium claim 16 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Nalci discloses of the non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 8 [Paragraph [0043], supported in Paragraph [0023] of Provisional, memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200 and input to video decoder 300]. 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 instant invention with implementing the computer medium as in Nalci as above, to reduce the signaling overhead and improve coding efficiency as Nalci discusses in Paragraph [0005].
This is nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
Claims 1, 8 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nalci et al. (US 2020/0396487 A1, with provisional benefit 62/861,828) (hereinafter Nalci) in view of Leleannec et al. (WO 2021/023552 A1) (hereinafter Leleannec).
Regarding claim 1, Nalci discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus [Paragraph [0169] & [0192], Fig. 9 & 11, supported in Paragraph [0033] of Provisional, Decoding method implemented with video decoder], the method comprising:
obtaining residual information from a bitstream [Paragraph [0071]-[0072] & [0193], Fig. 11, supported in Paragraph [0041], [0053] & [0129] of Provisional, Video decoder 300 may receive entropy encoded data within bitstream for the current block, such as entropy encoded data for transform coefficients of a residual block];
deriving transform coefficients for a current block based on the residual information [Paragraph [0193], Fig. 11, supported in Paragraph [0041], [0053] & [0129] of Provisional, inverse scan the reproduced transform coefficients to create a block of quantized transform coefficients (376)];
deriving modified transform coefficients by applying a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) to the transform coefficients [Paragraph [0193] & [0201], Fig. 11 & 13, supported in Paragraph [0054]-[0055], [0105] & [0129] of Provisional, video decoder 300 may apply an inverse LFNST as part of producing the residual block (380) & (454)];
deriving residual samples for the current block based on an inverse primary transform for the modified transform coefficients [Paragraph [0193] & [0201], Fig. 11 & 13, supported in Paragraph [0053]-[0055], [0105] & [0129] of Provisional, video decoder 300 may apply an inverse transform, as inverse primary transform, to the transform coefficients to produce a residual block (380) & (0458)]; and
generating a reconstructed picture based on the residual samples [Paragraph [0193], [0207] & [0223], Fig. 11 & 13, supported in Paragraph [0054]-[0055], [0105] & [0129] of Provisional, Video decoder 300 may ultimately decode the current block by combining the prediction block and the residual block (382)].
However, Nalci does not explicitly disclose
wherein the current block is split into a plurality of sub-partition blocks as an intra sub-partitions (ISP) is applied,
wherein the deriving the modified transform coefficients comprises:
parsing a single LFNST index for the current block based on a first condition or a
second condition being satisfied; and
deriving the modified transform coefficients based on an LFNST matrix indicated by the single LFNST index,
wherein the first condition is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is equal to or larger than 4x4 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in second regions for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks,
wherein the second is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is 4x4 block or 8x8 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in a second region other than a region from a top-left of each sub-partition block to an 8th transform coefficient in a scan direction for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks,
wherein the single LFNST index for the current block is not parsed based on neither the first condition nor the second condition being satisfied.
Leleannec teaches wherein the current block is split into a plurality of sub-partition blocks as an intra sub-partitions (ISP) is applied [Pg. 17, ll. 10-14, Fig. 7, decoding process where the primary inverse transform used for each TU is derived based on the LFNST index associated to the considered CU coded in ISP mode. In this embodiment, a loop is performed over each TU in the ISP intra CU and tests],
wherein the deriving the modified transform coefficients [Pg. 17, ll. 10-22, Fig. 7, Inverse primary/secondary transform applied] comprises:
parsing a single LFNST index for the current block based on a first condition or a
second condition being satisfied [Pgs. 15-16, ll. 25-6, The conditions regarding the decision whether the LFNST index is to be parsed for a TU are the same as the ones used conventionally, as outlined and read upon below]; and
deriving the modified transform coefficients based on an LFNST matrix indicated by the single LFNST index [Pg. 14, ll. 9-12, The transform matrix used is signaled through the LFNST index syntax element],
wherein the first condition is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is equal to or larger than 4x4 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in second regions for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks [Pgs. 15-16, ll. 25-6, The conditions regarding the decision whether the LFNST index is to be parsed for a TU are the same as the ones used conventionally: The CU size in the considered component is at least 4 in width and height, as being a 4x4 or 8x8 block; No non-zero quantized coefficient exists in a TU of the considered CU, in a 4x4 coding group other than the lowest frequency 4x4 coding group for a transform block of size at least 4x4, or with a scanning position greater than 7 in a square transform block of size equal to 4 or 8],
wherein the second is satisfied if each of the plurality of sub-partition blocks is 4x4 block or 8x8 block and any non-zero transform coefficient is not present in a second region other than a region from a top-left of each sub-partition block to an 8th transform coefficient in a scan direction for all of the plurality of sub-partition blocks [Pgs. 12, ll. 4-10 & pgs. 15-16, ll. 25-6, Table 2, The conditions regarding the decision whether the LFNST index is to be parsed for a TU are the same as the ones used conventionally: The CU size in the considered component is at least 4 in width and height, as being greater than or equal to 4x4 and block being of size 4x8 is none of 4x4 and 8x8; No non-zero quantized coefficient exists in a TU of the considered CU, in a 4x4 coding group other than the lowest frequency 4x4 coding group for a transform block of size at least 4x4, or with a scanning position greater than 7 in a square transform block of size equal to 4 or 8],
wherein the single LFNST index for the current block is not parsed based on neither the first condition nor the second condition being satisfied [Pgs. 15-16, ll. 25-6, The conditions regarding the decision whether the LFNST index is to be parsed for a TU are the same as the ones used conventionally, as outlined and read upon above, and no mention of other conditions indicates the single LFNST index is not parsed for other conditions].
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 Nalci to implement LFNST parsing feature as in Leleannec as above, for the usage of LFNST increases the coding efficiency of the video codec (Leleannec, Pg. 13, ll. 6-16).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is drawn to an image encoding method having limitations similar to the image decoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 8 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 15, transmission method claim 15 is drawn to a method having limitations similar to the image encoding method of using the same as claimed in claims 8 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, transmission method claim 15 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Nalci discloses of obtaining a bitstream for the image; and transmitting the data comprising the bitstream [Paragraph [0044]-[0047], supported in Paragraph [0022]-[0027] of Provisional, output interface 108 receives and transmits encoded bitstream].
Regarding claim 16, non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium claim 16 is drawn to a method having limitations similar to the image encoding method of using the same as claimed in claim 8 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium claim 16 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Nalci discloses of the non-transitory computer-readable digital storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 8 [Paragraph [0043], supported in Paragraph [0023] of Provisional, memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data, e.g., output from video encoder 200 and input to video decoder 300].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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