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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 28-29, and 31. Claims 1, 6, 11, 14, 16, and 31 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 28-29, and 31 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 28-29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukuba (US 20210243475 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220295061 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Tsukuba teaches an apparatus for video decoding, comprising one or more processors (Paragraph 146), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain video data, wherein the video data comprises prediction residuals of a coding block (Paragraph 146);
determine, based on the video data, that the prediction residuals are obtained (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158); and
decode the prediction residuals of the coding block with multiple transform selection (MTS) disabled (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158).
However, Tsukuba does not explicitly teach determine that the prediction residuals are obtained using a combined inter and intra prediction mode, a triangular partition mode, or a geometric merge mode; and based on the determination that the prediction residuals are obtained using the combined inter and intra prediction mode, the triangular partition mode, or the geometric merge mode, decode.
Zhang et al., however, teaches that the prediction residuals are obtained using, a combined inter and intra prediction mode, a triangular partition mode, or a geometric merge mode; and based on the determination that the prediction residuals are obtained using the affine motion compensation mode, the combined inter and intra prediction mode, the triangular partition mode, or the geometric merge mode, decode the prediction residuals of the coding block with multiple transform selection (MTS) disabled (Paragraph 48; Paragraphs 106-121; Paragraphs 137-156; ; Paragraph 197).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the teachings of Tsukuba to include the conditional disabling of MTS mode based on certain specific modes as shown in Zhang et al. above in order to provide video coding with higher coding efficiencies (See Zhang et al. Paragraph 105).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsukuba and Zhang et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Tsukuba further teaches that the one or more processors being configured to decode the prediction residuals of the coding block with MTS disabled comprises the one or more processors being configured to skip obtaining an MTS index from the video data (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsukuba and Zhang et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Tsukuba further teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on the video data, that the prediction residuals are obtained with transform skip disabled, and to decode prediction residuals of the coding block with transform skip disabled (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158).
Regarding Claim 28, Tsukuba and Zhang et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, Tsukuba further teaches that the one or more processors being configured to decode the prediction residuals of the coding block with MTS disabled comprises the one or more processors being configured to apply a discrete cosine transform to the coding block (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158).
Method claims 6, 8, 9, and 29 are drawn to the method of using apparatus claims 1, 3, 4 and 28, and thus have similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16 and 31 are drawn to the encoder associated with the decoder described in claims 1, 3, 4 and 28 above. The encoder claims have substantially similar limitations as those described in the decoder above, merely performed in the inverse and are rejected using the same art as used above. Tsukuba et al. further teaches an apparatus for video encoding; wherein the one or more processors being configured to encode (Paragraphs 108-120; Paragraphs 149-158; Paragraphs 370-385).
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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 on 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483