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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 2/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
According to Mpep 2111.04(II), The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The instant application discloses “when the sbt is enabled, directly setting a maximum coding unit size that allows subblock transform to the maximum transform size in luma samples. However, the claimed language does disclose what happens when the sbt is not enabled. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “when’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)). See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)). Rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A2 as being anticipated by US 20220141465 A1-KO et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Ko”).
Regarding claim 21, Ko discloses a method of decoding a bitstream to output one or more pictures for a video sequence ([0076], decoding a bitstream), the method comprising:
decoding the bitstream ([0076], decoding a bitstream);
determining, based on the decoded bitstream, a maximum transform size in luma samples (Fig 16 shows specifying max transform size in luma samples); and
when subblock transform (SBT) is enabled ([0207], indicating whether or not SBT may be used; [0267] discloses sbt being enabled is when the flag is 1. In addition, Fig. 24 discloses when the sbt flag is enabled),
directly setting a maximum coding unit (cu) size that allows (sbt) to the maximum transform size in luma samples (. According to instant applicant’s specification, [0065] In some disclosed embodiments, syntax element sps_sbt_max_size 64 flag is not signaled at all. In that case, maximum allowed CU width and height of SBT directly depends on the syntax element sps max luma transform_size 64 flag. If syntax element sps_max luma transform size 64 flag is equal to 0, the maximum CU width and height for allowing SBT are 32 luma samples. If syntax element sps_max_luma_transform_size_64 flag is equal to 1, the maximum CU width and height for allowing SBT are 64 luma samples. In other words, MaxSbtSize is set equal to MaxTbSizeY.. Therefore, to be consistent with instant applicant’s specification, Ko discloses in [0266], the maximum size for which the SBT (maxsbtsize) may be used may be equal to the maximum transform size (maxtbsize)), wherein the bitstream does not signal at the sequence level a maximum CU size for which SBT is allowed ([0207] discloses that the sps_sbt_max_size_64 may not be signal.).
Regarding claim 22, Ko discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein: decoding the bitstream comprises decoding a flag associated with the video sequence ([0198], wherein the flag is sps_max_luma_transform_size_64_flag); and determining the maximum transform size in luma samples comprises determining the maximum transform size in luma samples based on a value of the flag ([0198], wherein max transform size may be a certain number based on the flag indication).
Regarding claim 23, Ko discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the flag is signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS) of the bitstream (Fig. 17, shows the flag being signaled in the SPS).
Regarding claim 24, Ko discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the flag 1s sps_max_luma_transform_size_64 flag ([0198], wherein the flag is sps_max_luma_transform_size_64_flag).
Regarding claim 25, Ko discloses the method according to claim 22, further comprising: in response to a value of the flag being 1, determining the maximum transform size in luma samples to be equal to 64 (Fig 16); or in response to the value of the flag being 0, determining the maximum transform size in luma samples to be equal to 32 (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 26, Ko discloses the method according to claim 22, further comprising: in response to the flag having a first value, determining the maximum transform size in luma samples to be equal to a second value (Fig. 16); or in response to the flag having a third value, determining the maximum transform size in luma samples to be equal to a fourth value (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 27, Ko discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the comparison of the size of the CU to the maximum transform size in luma samples comprises at least one of: a comparison of a width of the CU to the maximum transform size in luma samples ([0208], Fig. 17)., or a comparison of a height of the CU to the maximum transform size in luma samples ([0208], Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 28, Ko discloses the method according to claim 21, further comprising: determining a maximum CU size that allows the SBT to be equal to the maximum transform size in luma samples ([0208]).
Regarding claim 29, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 21 and are applicable for claim 29 (encoding is the opposite od decoding; Fig. 1 shows and encoder)
Regarding claim 30, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 22 and are applicable for claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 23 and are applicable for claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 24 and are applicable for claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 25 and are applicable for claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 26 and are applicable for claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 27 and are applicable for claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 21 and are applicable for claim 36. In addition, claim 36 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream associated with a video sequence and several wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is further anticipated by Ko, which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0024]).
Regarding claim 37, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 22 and are applicable for claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 23 and are applicable for claim 38.
Regarding claim 39, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 25 and are applicable for claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 26 and are applicable for claim 40.
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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights