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 02/19/2026.
Claims 1-10, 21-30 are pending in the instant application.
Claim 1 & 21-22 are amended.
Claims 11-20 are cancelled.
Claims 23-30 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 02/19/2026, pg. 7, regarding the objection to claims 12-19, has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's remarks filed 02/19/2026, pgs. 7-9, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and similarly the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 & 21-22, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Zhao2 does not teach or suggest the limitations of determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on both (i) a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and (ii) a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Zhao2 teaches the above claim limitations. As explained in Section 7.3.3.1, Zhao2 discusses of slice_max_sbt _size64_flag, wherein the flag equal to 0, being the first value, specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 32, and when slice_max_sbt_size64_flag is equal to 1, being the second value, specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 64, and the value of sps_cbt_enable_flag, signifying that the current block is has a maximum transform block size that is configurable given the value of slice_max_sbt_size64_flag. Therefore Zhao2 teaches of determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64.
Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 and as a nonstatutory double patenting is 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 11,677,969 B2
Claims 1 & 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,677,969 B2 in view of Zhao et al.; “CE6: Sub-block transform for inter blocks (CE6.1.2)” JVET-L0358-V2, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, October 3-12, 2018 (hereinafter Zhao2), and further in view of Zhao et al. (WO 2019/076290 A1) (hereinafter Zhao).
Instant Application
US 11,677,969 B2
1. A method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising:
1. A method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising:
decoding coded information of a coding block (CB) in a picture from a coded video bitstream, the coded information indicating a width of the CB and a height of the CB;
decoding coded information of a coding block (CB) in a picture from a coded video bitstream, the coded information indicating a width of the CB as W samples and a height of the CB as H samples;
determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on both (i) a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and (ii) a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64; and
determining a maximum transform unit (TU) size M based on whether at least one of the width W of the CB or the height H of the CB is greater than 64, the maximum TU size M being equal to 64 responsive to the at least one of the width W of the CB or the height H of the CB being greater than 64, and equal to a maximum CB size responsive to the width W of the CB and the height H of the CB not being greater than 64;
reconstructing the coding block based on the maximum SBT size.
As noted above, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims of determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64. However, these limitations are known in the art as described in Zhao2. Zhao2, in Section 7.3.3.1, teaches of the flag, slice_max_sbt_size64_flag, wherein the flag equal to 0 specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 32, and equal to 1 specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 64. 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 claim 1 of US 11,677,969 B2 to integrate the teachings of Zhao2 as above, to lower PSNR-Y BR-rates with decoder complexity not increased as Zhao2 states in the Abstract and Simulation Results.
Furthermore, although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims of reconstructing the coding block based on the maximum SBT size. However, these limitations are known in the art as described in Zhao. Zhao, in Paragraph [0058]-[0061], [0082]-[0085], [00111]-[00115], teaches of blocks being reconstructed using maximum height and width of SVT information. 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 claim 1 of US 11,677,969 B2 to integrate the teachings of Zhao as above, to improve the compression ratio with little to no sacrifice in image quality is desirable as Zhao states in the background.
Regarding claim 21, apparatus claim 21 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing limitations similar to the method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 21 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 22, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions claim 22 corresponds to apparatus claim 21, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
These are nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
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 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (WO 2019/076290 A1) (hereinafter Zhao) in view of Zhao et al.; “CE6: Sub-block transform for inter blocks (CE6.1.2)” JVET-L0358-V2, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, October 3-12, 2018 (hereinafter Zhao2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches of a method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising:
decoding coded information of a coding block (CB) in a picture from a coded video bitstream, the coded information indicating a width of the CB and a height of the CB [Paragraph [0058]-[0061], [0082]-[0085] & [0122]-[0124], decoder receives coded information including type of SVT block can be determined according to a syntax element (e.g., a parameter in a parameter set). The transform block size can then be derived according to the SVT type]; and
reconstructing the coding block based on the maximum SBT size [Paragraph [0058]-[0061], [0082]-[0085], [00111]-[00115], blocks reconstructed using maximum height and width of SVT information, as SBT sizes].
However, Zhao does not explicitly disclose determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on both (i) a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and (ii) a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64.
Zhao2 teaches determining a maximum sub-block transform (SBT) size based on both (i) a value indicated by an SBT maximum size flag and (ii) a configurable maximum transform block size, the SBT maximum size flag being a first value indicating that the value is 64, the SBT maximum size flag being a second value indicating that the value is 32, and the maximum transform block size being less than 64 [Section 7.3.3.1, slice_max_sbt_size64_flag, wherein the flag equal to 0, being the first value, specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 32, and equal to 1, being the second value, specifies that the maximum CU width and height is 64, and sps_cbt_enable_flag, signifying that the current block is has a maximum transform block size that is configurable given the value of slice_max_sbt_size64_flag].
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 of decoding disclosed by Zhao to add the teachings of Zhao2 as above, to lower PSNR-Y BR-rates with decoder complexity not increased (Zhao2, Abstract and 2 Simulation Results).
Regarding claim 21, apparatus claim 21 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing limitations similar to the method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 21 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Further Zhao discloses an apparatus for video encoding, comprising: processing circuitry [Paragraph [00137]-[00140], processor 1130 within video decoding device 1200], encoding a coding block (CB) based on the maximum SBT size; and encode information indicating a width of the CB and a height of the CB [Paragraph [0050]-[0061], [0082]-[0085] & [00122]-[00124], resulting data encoded in a bitstream at step 309, wherein data includes coded information including type of SVT block can be determined according to a syntax element (e.g., a parameter in a parameter set). The transform block size can then be derived according to the SVT type].
Regarding claim 22, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions claim 22 corresponds to apparatus claim 21, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Zhao1 discloses of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions [Paragraph [00137]-[00138], the coding module 1114 can be implemented as instructions stored in the memory 1132 and executed by the processor 1130 (e.g., as a computer program product stored on a non-transitory medium)], and transmitting the encoded video bitstream including the encoded CB and the information [Paragraph [0050]-[0061], [0082]-[0085] & [00122]-[00124], resulting data encoded in a bitstream at step 309, wherein data includes coded information including type of SVT block can be determined according to a syntax element (e.g., a parameter in a parameter set). The transform block size can then be derived according to the SVT type].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 & 23-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights