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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Applicant’s representative is intent on creating a negative claim limitation on the basis that Specification does not mention it one way or another. This is not appropriate: Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff ’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.)
On pages 14-16 Applicant provides an uncited statement: “I. Technical Effects of Suppressing LFNST Index Signaling (DC-only Case) … II. Technical Effects of Forcing LFNST Index Decoding (One AC Coefficient Case) …”
Examiner can not verify the accuracy of this statement, the validity of its source, or accuracy in application to image data as claimed. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Furthermore, since Specification does not provide this description, this cannot be construed as a supported invention or as the intended benefits.
Applicant argues: “Support for this amendment is based on the following disclosure in paragraph [21 5] of US-2022-0394311 : ''TBs with a width or height of two are not subject to secondary transformation, as there is no kernel defined for TBs of such dimensions. An additional condition on performing the secondary transform is the presence of at least one AC residual coefficient among the applicable TBs. That is, if the only significant residual coefficients are in the DC (top-left) position of each TB, then the secondary transform is not performed ('NO' at step 1650) and the method 1600 progresses to the determine LFNST index step 1660." … The text states that performing the secondary transform requires the presence of an AC residual coefficient. The condition does not include the DC position coefficient.”
Examiner disagrees. Applicant may not interpret absence of written description of a feature as support for the exclusion of the feature in the claims. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff ’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.)
Here the condition is based on the “presence of at least one AC residual coefficient.” Specification does not disclose a required status of the DC position coefficient under this condition. Specification, consistent with the art, indicates that the DC coefficient can be present regardless of whether the AC coefficients are present.
Specification does not support that the DC coefficient may be absent when at least one AC coefficient is present. Since this case is highly unlikely. Image values are typically represented as positive integers, and DC represents an average of all the coefficients including the AC coefficients, having at least one non-zero AC coefficient is not likely to produce a zero DC coefficient under these circumstances. It is not reasonable to read this unlikely limitation into the Specification that does not positively recite it.
Applicant further argues: “The Examiner mentioned that cases where a coefficient exists at the DC position and also at an AC position are common, but cases where only AC coefficients exist and DC is zero also occur. For example, the following pattern image corresponds to such a case. … For the image presented above, where the DC coefficient is zero and only AC coefficients exist, the amended claims produce an effect.”
Examiner notes that Applicant has submitted a figure that was not disclosed in the Specification and an uncited explanation that does not have a verifiable accuracy or verifiable applicability to the present disclosure. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Applicant further argues that the newly amended language distinguishes over the prior art. Examiner notes that the newly amended language is addressed in the updated reasons for rejection below.
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.
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff ’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.)
Claims 10-34 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-34 recite: “a transform block in the coding unit includes only one non-zero coefficient and the one non-zero coefficient is located at an AC position” however Specification does not support this feature. In Specification Figs. 8-9 there is always a DC coefficient (which is the coefficient in the top left corner) when at least one AC coefficient is present (all other locations). Specification Paragraph 96 also states: “Due to application of the secondary transform to only a set of coefficients adjacent to each other and including the DC coefficient.”
Applicant cites Specification Paragraph 187 as stating: “An additional condition on performing the secondary transform is the presence of at least on AC residual coefficient among the applicable TBs. That is, if the only significant residual coefficients are in the DC (top-left) position of each applicable TB, then the secondary transform is not performed ('NO' at step 1480) and the method 1400 progresses to the MTS signalling test step 14100.” However, this paragraph does not recite the claim limitation language, or otherwise disclose having an AC coefficient but not a DC coefficient. This paragraph discloses only two possibilities (1) “the presence of at least on AC residual coefficient” and (2) “the only significant residual coefficients are in the DC (top-left) position.” Neither discloses absence of a DC coefficient, thus exclusion of a DC coefficient in the presence of only one AC coefficient is not a supported feature.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
“When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Where prior art recites claimed features combined with additional features, omission of the additional features in the claim does not distinguish it over the prior art reference. Further, an omission of an element and its function is obvious. M.P.E.P. 2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Claims 10-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020055611 to Zhao (“Zhao”) also cited and provided in an IDS in view of US 20190349587 to Jang (“Jang”).
Regarding Claim 10: “A method of decoding a coding unit from a bitstream,
the coding unit being divided, using a tree structure, from a coding tree unit of an image, (“In High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), a coding tree unit (CTU) is split into coding units (CUs) by using a quadtree structure” Zhao, Paragraph 3.)
the coding unit being capable of having at least a luma component or chroma components, and the chroma components including a Cb component and a Cr component, the method comprising: (“one CU contains one luma CB and two chroma CBs” Zhao, Paragraph 4.)
decoding, from the bitstream, a luma transform skip flag for the luma component, in a case where the coding unit has the luma component, the luma transform skip flag indicating whether a luma transform process for the luma component is skipped; … decoding, from the bitstream, a first chroma transform skip flag for the Cb component and a second chroma transform skip flag for the Cr component, in a case where the coding unit has the chroma components, the first chroma transform skip flag indicating whether a first chroma transform process for the Cb component is skipped, and the second chroma transform skip flag indicating whether a second chroma transform process for the Cr component is skipped; (Zhao teaches: “For a coding block (both luma and chroma) with less than or equal to 16 samples, a flag is signaled to indicate whether TS mode is applied for current block. … NSST is not applied for a block coded with a transform skip mode” Zhao, Paragraphs 22, 28.
Zhao does not teach separate “luma transform skip flag … a first chroma transform skip flag for the Cb component and a second chroma transform skip flag for the Cr component.”
Jang teaches that this feature was known in the context of using the HEVC video standard: “Au encoder may transmit a transform skip flag to a decoder for each of luma component (or Y component) and chroma components (C and Cr components). … the encoder may signal to a decoder only when a transform skip is not applied to a component …” Jang, Paragraph 153.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Zhao to encode and decode separate “luma transform skip flag, a first chroma transform skip flag for the Cb component and a second chroma transform skip flag for the Cr component” in the context of performing the above claimed features as taught in Jang, so that “the transform skip flag may be transmitted for each component, whether to apply a transform skip may be determined differently for each component.” Jang, Paragraph 153.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
determining, for the coding unit, whether to decode an (For example: “a selected non-separable secondary transform candidate is further specified by an explicitly signaled CU-level NSST index” indicating a requirement for the index to be decoded. Zhao, Paragraph 27. Similarly note “signaling the MTS transform index,” Zhao, Paragraphs 104-105.)
decoding, for the coding unit, the index for the specific transform process from the bitstream, in accordance with a result of determination in the determining, (“In VVC, a mode-dependent non-separable secondary transform (NSST) is applied … (at a decoder)” Zhao Paragraphs 23, 27.)
wherein in a case where the coding tree unit has a size of 128x128 and a coding tree structure for the luma component in the coding tree unit is to be separate from a coding tree structure for the chroma components in the coding tree unit, (a) the coding tree unit is, in common between the luma component and the chroma components, divided into four regions each having a size of 64x64, (“In an example of the QTBT partitioning structure, the CTU size is set as 128x 128 luma samples [in common] with two corresponding 64x64 blocks of chroma samples, … The quadtree [split into four regions] leaf nodes may each have a size from 16x16 (i.e., the MinQTSize) to 128x 128 (i.e., the CTU size). … the leaf quadtree node could be further partitioned by the binary tree. Therefore, the quadtree leaf node is also a root node for the binary tree,” Zhao, Paragraph 11.)
(b) a dual tree structure for the luma component and a dual tree structure for the chroma components start for each one of the four regions, and (“In addition, the QTBT scheme supports an ability for a luma and a chroma to each have a separate QTBT structure.” Zhao, Paragraph 13.)
(c) the determination of whether to decode the index is performed for each coding unit divided, using the dual tree structure for the luma component, from a given region among the four regions before the determination of whether to decode the index is performed for each coding unit divided, using the dual tree structure for the chroma components, from the given region, (“Binary tree leaf nodes are called CUs … a selected non-separable secondary transform candidate is further specified by an explicitly signaled CU-level NSST index.” Zhao, Paragraphs 4, 27.)
wherein the index for the coding unit is decoded from the bitstream and the specific transform process is performed (“In VVC, only one transform set, which includes DST-VII and DCT-VIII, is adopted, and MTS is applied … In VVC, a mode-dependent non-separable secondary transform (NSST) is applied between a forward core transform and quantization (at an encoder) and between de-quantization and an inverse core transform (at a decoder). ” Zhao, Paragraphs 21-23. “This NSST index is signaled ,,,” Zhao, Paragraphs 27-28.)
even when the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using a single tree structure, and a transform block in the coding unit includes only one non-zero coefficient and the one non-zero coefficient is located at an AC position of the transform block, and
(See reasons for rejection in section 112 above. Cumulatively, Zhao teaches: “This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU.” Zhao, Paragraphs 27-28. This applies in the situation where single tree structure is used as in Zhao Paragraph 11.
However, the claim is not limited to NSST index but generally to an “index for a specific transform process.” So, for example, “when signaling the MTS transform index, if the number of non-zero coefficients is less than or equal to a pre-defined threshold value, then MTS transform index is not signaled … whether NSST is applied may not only depend on the usage of IDT in MTS, but also depend on other coded information or any information that is available …” Zhao, Paragraphs 104-105 and similarly in Jang, Paragraph 14. This means that a threshold can be set at zero and the index a specific transform process can be coded even if the number of non-zero coefficients is one, which covers the condition if there is “only one non-zero coefficient and the one non-zero coefficient is located at an AC position.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decode an index for a specific transform process even when the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using a single tree structure, and a transform block in the coding unit includes only one non-zero coefficient and the one non-zero coefficient is located at an AC position of the transform block, as taught in Zhao, in order to condition the decoding of a specific transform based on “coded information or any information that is available.” Zhao, Paragraphs 104-105.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
the index for the coding unit is always not decoded from the bitstream in a case where the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using a single tree structure and each transform block in the coding unit includes a non-zero coefficient only at a DC position, (“A truncated value is 2 in case of planar or DC mode [one coefficient], and 3 for an angular intra prediction mode. This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU.” Thus, the index would never be signaled in a DC mode where there is only one / DC value. Zhao, Paragraph 27. This includes not coding the index in the situation where single tree structure is used as in Zhao Paragraph 11.)
wherein, a value of the index for the coding unit is inferred to be 0, without decoding the index for the coding unit, in a case where (In this case: “This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU. A default [inferred] value is zero when it is not signaled.” Zhao, Paragraph 27.)
(i) the luma transform process, the first chroma transform process, and the second chroma transform process are skipped and (Zhao further provides: “For a coding block (both luma and chroma) with less than or equal to 16 samples, a flag is signaled to indicate whether TS mode is applied for current block. When TS mode is applied, the detailed modifications for each module are listed below. … (b) Transform: Skipped, …” Zhao, Paragraphs 22, 28.)
(i) the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using the single tree structure, (Note that for a leaf node equal MinQTSize, exemplified as 16x16 in Zhao Paragraph 11, the leaf node “will not be further split by a binary tree,” thus using the single tree structure.)
Wherein a value of the index for the coding unit is inferred to be 0 without decoding the index for the coding unit, in a case where (In this case: “NSST index … A default [inferred] value is zero when it is not signaled.” Zhao, Paragraph 27. Further “NSST is not applied for a block coded with a transform skip mode.” See Zhao Paragraph 28 and similarly in Jang, Paragraph 131. See statement of motivation above.)
(i) the luma transform process is skipped and (Both Jang and Zhao teach that “a transform skip flag indicates whether to skip a transform without performing the transform to the corresponding block,” in this case a luma block. Jang, Paragraph 131, Zhao Paragraph 28. Note that Jang teaches that a transform skip flag can be signaled separately for luma and chroma components in Jang, Paragraph 153. Jang also teaches (ii) that coding tree units can be defined separately for a luma and a chroma component in Paragraph 45. See statement of motivation above.)
(i) the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using the dual tree structure for the luma component, and (“Binary tree leaf nodes are called CUs, and that segmentation is used for prediction and transform processing without any further partitioning.” Zhao, Paragraphs 4, 11. Jang also teaches (ii) that coding tree units can be defined separately for a luma and a chroma component in Paragraph 45. See statement of motivation above.)
wherein a value of the index for the coding unit is inferred to be 0 without decoding the index for the coding unit, in a case where (In this case: “NSST index … A default [inferred] value is zero when it is not signaled.” Zhao, Paragraph 27. Further “NSST is not applied for a block coded with a transform skip mode.” See Zhao Paragraph 28 and similarly in Jang, Paragraph 131. See statement of motivation above.)
(i) the first chroma transform process and the second chroma transform process are skipped and (Both Jang and Zhao teach that “a transform skip flag indicates whether to skip a transform without performing the transform to the corresponding block,” in this case a luma block. Jang, Paragraph 131, Zhao Paragraph 28. Note that Jang teaches that a transform skip flag can be signaled separately for luma and chroma components in Jang, Paragraph 153. Jang also teaches (ii) that coding tree units can be defined separately for a luma and a chroma component in Paragraph 45. See statement of motivation above.)
(ii) the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using a dual tree structure for the chroma components, and” (“Binary tree leaf nodes are called CUs, and that segmentation is used for prediction and transform processing without any further partitioning.” Zhao, Paragraphs 4, 11. Jang also teaches (ii) that coding tree units can be defined separately for a luma and a chroma component in Paragraph 45. See statement of motivation above.)
wherein the index for the coding unit is not decoded from the bitstream and the value of the index for the coding unit is inferred to be 0, (In this case: “NSST index … A default [inferred] value is zero when it is not signaled.” Zhao, Paragraph 27. Further “NSST is not applied for a block coded with a transform skip mode.” See Zhao Paragraph 28 and similarly in Jang, Paragraph 131. See statement of motivation above.)
in a case where the coding unit is divided from the coding tree unit using the dual tree structure for the chroma components and (“Binary tree leaf nodes are called CUs, and that segmentation is used for prediction and transform processing without any further partitioning.” Zhao, Paragraphs 4, 11. Jang also teaches (ii) that coding tree units can be defined separately for a luma and a chroma component in Paragraph 45. See statement of motivation above.)
the coding unit has a predetermined size.“ (“the MinBTSize (for both width and height) is set as 4x4,” thus having a predetermined allowed size for coding particular information. Zhao Paragraph 11.)
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute block coding properties commonly used in HEVC standard as conditions incident to not-signaling another index, because such properties would ordinarily be coded as part of HEVC and do not materially impact (based on evidence on the record) either the decision to skip the index or the performance of the video coding to produce unexpected results.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 11: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the image has a 4:2:0 chroma format.” (“one CU contains one luma CB and two chroma CBs in a case of P and B slices of a 4:2:0 chroma format,” Zhao Paragraph 4.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method according to claim 10, wherein use of a chroma block having a size of 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed in a case where an intra prediction and the single tree structure are used.” (“the MinBTSize (for both width and height) is set as 4x4,” Zhao Paragraph 11.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method according to claim 10, wherein index having a value of 0 indicates that the specific transform process is not used.” (In this case: “This NSST index is signaled [used] only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU. A default [inferred] value is zero when it is not signaled [used].” Zhao, Paragraph 27.)
Claim 14: “A method of encoding a coding unit into a bitstream,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10, because the decoding method of Claim 10 describes the same signal limitations as the encoding method of Claim 14, and these signals have the same properties in “an encoding/decoding process such as prediction, transformation and/or quantization is performed” Jang, Paragraph 139 and statement of motivation in Claim 10.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 11-13 respectively in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
Claim 18: “An apparatus for decoding, … the apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute a code stored on the memory ” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10, because the apparatus elements of Claim 18 perform the method steps of Claim 10, and because prior art teaches: “an apparatus for controlling residual coding for decoding or encoding of a video sequence includes at least one memory configured to store computer program code” Zhao, Paragraph 35.)
Claim 19: “An apparatus for encoding, … the apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute a code stored on the memory” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 14, because the apparatus elements of Claim 19 perform the method steps of Claim 14, and because prior art teaches: “an apparatus for controlling residual coding for decoding or encoding of a video sequence includes at least one memory configured to store computer program code” Zhao, Paragraph 35.)
Claim 20: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing computer-executable instructions which causes a computer to perform the method according to claim 10,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10, because the medium elements of Claim 20 perform the method steps of Claim 10, and because prior art teaches: “an apparatus for controlling residual coding for decoding or encoding of a video sequence includes at least one memory configured to store computer program code” Zhao, Paragraph 35.)
Claim 21: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing computer-executable instructions which causes a computer to perform the method according to claim 14,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 14, because the apparatus elements of Claim 21 perform the method steps of Claim 14, and because prior art teaches: “an apparatus for controlling residual coding for decoding or encoding of a video sequence includes at least one memory configured to store computer program code” Zhao, Paragraph 35.)
Regarding Claim 22: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the DC position in the transform block is a top-left position among a plurality of positions within the transform block.” (“transform is applied to a top-left 8x8 region of a transform coefficients block.” Zhao, Paragraph 23.)
Regarding Claim 23: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the DC position in the transform block is a position to be scanned last in a predetermined scan order among a plurality of positions within the transform block.” (“last_sig_coeff_x_prefix specifies the prefix of the column position of the last significant coefficient in scanning order within a transform block … last_sig_coeff_y_prefix specifies the prefix of the row position of the last significant coefficient in scanning order within a transform block … “ Zhao, Paragraph 111. In the case noted above, where the block is coded in “DC mode” and having one coefficient, per Zhao, Paragraph 27, the DC coefficient is the last significant coefficient in the scan order among the plurality of positions in the block.)
Regarding Claim 24: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the dual tree structure for the luma component is decoded for the given region before the dual tree structure for the chroma components is decoded for the given region.” (“The CTU includes a coding tree block (CTB) for a luma component and the CTB for two chroma components that correspond to it,” indicating an order where chroma is decoded after luma to preserve the data correspondence. See Jang, Paragraph 77. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 25: “The method according to claim 10, wherein in a case where a transform block in the coding unit contains a non-zero coefficient, a flag indicating whether a magnitude of the non-zero coefficient is greater than 1 is decoded, and the magnitude of the non-zero coefficient is determined by using the decoded flag.” (“This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU.” Zhao, Paragraph 27.)
Regarding Claim 26: “The method according to claim 25, wherein a context-coded bin is used for the flag.” (“This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU. A default value is [inferred to be] zero when it is not signaled.” Zhao, Paragraph 27.)
Regarding Claim 27: “The method according to claim 25, wherein information of a sign of the non-zero coefficient is decoded.” (See treatment under section 112 above. Further, prior art teaches: “This NSST index is signaled only when there is more than one non-zero coefficients in a CU,” indicating a signaling of the non-zero coefficients. Zhao, Paragraph 27. This can include signed coefficients in Zhao, Paragraph 113.)
Claims 28-32 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 22-27 respectively, in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
Regarding Claim 33: “The method according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined size is a width less than 4 or a height less than 4.” (“In an example …. the MinBTSize (for both width and height) is set as 4x4,” thus having a predetermined allowed size within a range of sizes. Zhao Paragraph 11. Also note that this value can be selected and thus predetermined to be another value under the HEVC.)
Claim 34 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 33 in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights