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 September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Zhao in view of Cherepanov does not teach checking whether a coding block is divided into a plurality of transform blocks; based on that the coding block is divided into the plurality of transforms blocks (Remarks of September 26, 2025). The examine respectfully disagrees. The Zhao discloses parameters that consider various sizes of transform blocks. The language implies that there are multiple transform blocks which make up the coding block (¶ 105 and 106).
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.
Claim(s) 8 – 10, 12 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2018/0020218, hereafter Zhao) in view of Cherepanov et al (US 2017/0034530, hereafter Cherepanov).
As per claim 8, Zhao discloses a method for decoding a video signal, comprising:
checking whether a coding block is divided into a plurality of transform blocks;
based on that the coding block is divided into the plurality of transform blocks, determining a non-zero region in a current transform block among the plurality of transform blocks based on a width and a height of the current transform block (¶ 105 and 106), wherein a last non-zero transform coefficient is positioned in the non-zero region (¶ 146);
obtaining first information regarding a position of the last non-zero transform coefficient, wherein the first information regarding a position of the last non-zero transform coefficient comprises prefix information of a horizontal position and prefix information of a vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient, and suffix information of a horizontal position and suffix information of a vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient (¶ 110 and 146); and
decoding the current transform block based on the position of the last non-zero transform coefficient (¶ 28 and 33).
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein response to the width and the height of the transform block being equal to a specific value, the non-zero region is limited region, wherein a number of pixels in the non-zero region is a specific number.
In the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein response to the width and the height of the transform block being equal to a specific value, the non-zero region is limited region, wherein a number of pixels in the non-zero region is a specific number (¶ 63 – 65, 76, and 77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Zhao in view of . The advantage is improved transform coding.
As per claim 9, Zhao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the prefix information of the horizontal position and the prefix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient are inversely binarized based on a truncated unary code (¶ 110; The vertical or horizontal component of the coordination is represented by its prefix and suffix, wherein prefix is binarized with truncated rice (TR) and suffix is binarized with fixed length.).
As per claim 10, Zhao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the suffix information of the horizontal position and the suffix information of the vertical position for the last non-zero transform coefficient are inversely binarized based on a fixed length code (¶ 110; The vertical or horizontal component of the coordination is represented by its prefix and suffix, wherein prefix is binarized with truncated rice (TR) and suffix is binarized with fixed length.).
As per claim 11, Zhao discloses the method of claim 8, wherein in response to the width and the height of the transform block being equal to a specific value, the non-zero region is a limited region, wherein a number of pixels in the non-zero region is a specific number (¶ 33 and 146).
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 22.
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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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 on 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487