Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 from Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argued that the conditions in CHOI are related to whether to parse a transform skip flag for the block, but do not related to whether the transform skip mode is used for the block.
While Applicant’s arguments are understood, CHOI clearly teaches that transform skip flag is parsed first before it is applied (see paragraphs 0192, 0210 and Fig. 7). The decoding apparatus parses the value of the syntax element transform_skip_flag of the transform skip flag as 1, which means that the transform skip mode is allowed to be used for the block. Thus, from FIG. 7, the conditions S700 and S720 are specified to be met to parse the value of the transform_skip_flag as 1 in order to allow application of the transform skip mode to be used for the block.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 from Applicant’s remarks, with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2021/0337235) hereinafter “CHOI” in view of LEE et al. (US 2022/0232221) hereinafter “LEE” in further view of YOO et al. (US 2020/0260070) hereinafter “YOO”.
As per claim 1, CHOI discloses a method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video according to a rule (encoding and decoding are performed as shown in figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0073),
wherein the rule specifies that coding information of the current block determines usage of coefficient reordering by which coefficients of the current block parsed from the bitstream are reordered prior to applying a dequantization process, an inverse transform process, or a reconstruction process (paragraph 0075, The dequantizer 321 may rearrange the quantized transform coefficients in a two-dimensional block form. In this case, the rearrangement may be performed based on a coefficient scan order performed by the encoding apparatus; paragraph 0269, A residual rearranger of the decoding apparatus may determine whether to rearrange the residual coefficients based on the transform skip flag for the current block, and may rearrange the residual coefficients when the value of the transform skip value is 1; see fig. 14B).
wherein the rule specifies that whether a transform skip mode is used to the current block is determined based on coding information of the current block (see figs. 7A-7B), wherein the transform skip mode is a coding mode in which a transform is skipped on a prediction residual of a video block (paragraphs 0192 and 0268),
wherein the coding information includes…whether the current block has a width and a height smaller than a threshold (paragraph 0195; see table 15 in paragraph 0200), and
wherein the following conditions are specified to be met to allow the transform skip mode to be used for the current block: a value of a higher level enable syntax element indicates that transform skip mode is enabled, the current block has a width and a height smaller than the threshold equal to 64 (paragraph 0195; see table 15 in paragraph 0200, The sizes of log 2TbWidth and log 2TbHeight may be determined by variables wN and hN. In the case wN and hN each have a value of 6, in this case the transform skip flag is signaled for the block having a width smaller than or equal to 64 and a height smaller than or equal to 64, see this explanation on paragraphs 0171- 0173 of YOO).
However, CHOI does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding information includes whether a subblock transform (SBT) is applicable to a coding unit including the current block, whether the current block is coded in an inter mode, and
wherein the following conditions are specified to be met to allow the transform skip mode to be used for the current block: the current block is coded in the inter mode and the SBT is applicable to the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, LEE discloses wherein the coding information includes whether a subblock transform (SBT) is applicable to a coding unit including the current block (paragraphs 0296 and 0298; the first transform information includes a current block is a sub-block transform (SBT) mode), whether the current block is coded in an inter mode (inter-prediction mode is part of the coded information as taught in paragraph 0137), and
wherein the following conditions are specified to be met to allow the transform skip mode to be used for the current block: the current block is coded in the inter mode (paragraph 0292, when a current block is an inter-prediction mode, a second transform may be skipped) and the SBT is applicable to the current block (paragraph 0298, when a current block is a sub-block transform (SBT) mode, a second transform may be skipped).
However, CHOI or LEE do not explicitly disclose that the value of the higher level syntax element indicating that the transform skip mode is enabled is included in a picture header.
In the same field of endeavor, YOO discloses conditions specified to be met to allow the transform skip mode to be used includes the value of the higher level syntax element indicating that the transform skip mode is enabled is included in a picture header (paragraph 0184, the information about whether to enable the transform skip, for example, transform_skip_enabled_flag syntax element, may also be signaled based on a picture parameter set (PPS) or signaled by being included in the PPS syntax).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by CHOI, with those of LEE and YOO, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed all references describe transform skip mode conditions, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of CHOI, LEE and YOO used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, CHOI discloses wherein the coding information includes a transform type (paragraph 0269, A residual rearranger of the decoding apparatus may determine whether to rearrange the residual coefficients based on the transform skip flag for the current block, and may rearrange the residual coefficients when the value of the transform skip value is 1; paragraph 0195).
As per claim 3, CHOI discloses wherein the usage of the coefficient reordering is based on whether the transform skip mode is used to the current block (paragraph 0269, A residual rearranger of the decoding apparatus may determine whether to rearrange the residual coefficients based on the transform skip flag for the current block, and may rearrange the residual coefficients when the value of the transform skip value is 1).
As per claim 4, CHOI discloses wherein the coding information includes whether the current block is an intra-coded block (paragraph 0282, whether to rearrange the residual coefficients may be determined based on whether a prediction mode for the current block is an inter prediction mode or an intra prediction mode; paragraph 0374).
As per claim 5, CHOI discloses wherein the coefficient reordering is used at least based on the transform type is the transform skip mode and the current block is an intra-coded block (paragraph 0274, a process of determining a rearrangement method or whether to perform rearrangement based on the foregoing condition may be performed only when the value of the transform skip flag for the current block is 1. That is, when the value of the transform skip flag for the current block is 1, a rearrangement method or whether to perform rearrangement may be determined based on the intra prediction mode for the current block).
As per claim 7, CHOI discloses wherein whether the transform skip mode is used to the current block is further determined based on a higher level enable syntax element included in a sequence header, a picture parameter set, a video parameter set, or a slice header (see transform_skip_enabled_flag taught in paragraphs 0200 and 0212).
As per claim 11, CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a transform block (paragraph 0097).
As per claim 12, CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream (see fig. 2 and paragraphs 0057-0058).
As per claim 13, CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream (fig. 3 and paragraph 0072-0073).
As per claim 14, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14; in addition, CHOI discloses a processor and a non-transitory memory with instruction thereon for performing the claimed method (paragraph 0449).
As per claim 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3 and 5 are applicable for claim 15.
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claim 16.
As per claim 17, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17; in addition, CHOI discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0449).
As per claim 18, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3 and 5 are applicable for claim 18.
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19; in addition, CHOI discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (paragraph 0065).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 3 and 5 are applicable for claim 20.
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 MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482