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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For example, independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 recite “when the explicit determination of transform type is allowed …” drawn to when an explicit determination of an undefined transform type is allowed to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite.
Note: Dependent claims 3-4, 8-9, 13-14, 18-19, and 21-24 are also rejected since these claims do not fix the above claim deficiency. The contexts of the claimed invention will be best understood by the examiner if the above limitations are particularly pointed out and the subject matter noted above is distinctly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (“Cho”) (US Pub. No.: 2019/0208199 A1) in view of Moon et al. (“Moon”) (US Pub. No.: 2019/0149836 A1), in view of Kanoh et al. (“Kanoh”) (US Pub. No.: 2020/0137388 A1), and further in view of Koo et al. (“Koo”) (US Pub. No.: 2020/0322635 A1).
In regards to claim [1], [6], [11], and [16], Cho discloses video decoding (see abstract, paragraph [0155]) and encoding method (see abstract, paragraph [0155]), a decoder (see fig. 2) and an encoder (see fig. 1), comprising: a memory (see paragraph [0201]), for storing instructions executable by a processor (see paragraph [0201]), the processor (see paragraph [0201]), for performing the instructions (see paragraph [0201]) to execute operations of:
deriving an intra prediction mode of the current block (see fig. 5 unit S510); and performing intra prediction on the current block (see fig. 5 unit S530, paragraph [0178]) based on the reference sample line of a current block (see paragraphs [0185]) and the derived intra prediction mode (see fig. 5 unit S510, paragraph [0111]), determining whether or not to partition the current block into a plurality of subblocks (see fig. 3, paragraphs [0097-0098]).
Yet, Cho fails to explicitly disclose such that deriving an intra prediction mode of the current block based on whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is a same intra prediction mode as a candidate intra prediction mode; and wherein when the current block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, the plurality of subblocks share one intra prediction mode as claimed.
However, Moon teaches the well-known concept of deriving an intra prediction mode of the current block (see paragraph [0018]) based on whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is a same intra prediction mode as a candidate intra prediction mode (see fig. 28 unit S2806 and/or fig. 58 unit S5803 → “YES”); and wherein when the current block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks (see fig. 60, paragraph [0544]), the plurality of subblocks (see fig. 60, e.g. “sub-blocks 1-4”) share one intra prediction mode (see fig. 60, e.g. “sub-blocks 1-4 share a same curve intra-prediction mode number 10”).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of modifying the proposed teachings of Cho above by incorporating the proposed teachings of Moon above to perform such a modification to provide a method and apparatus for decoding and encoding that implements deriving an intra prediction mode of the current block based on whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is a same intra prediction mode as a candidate intra prediction mode; and wherein when the current block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, the plurality of subblocks share one intra prediction mode as well as to the solve the problem in a case where demand for multimedia data such as videos is rapidly increasing on the Internet. However, the speed at which the bandwidth of a channel evolves is a situation that is hard to follow the amount of multimedia data that is rapidly increasing as taught by Moon et al. (see Moon, paragraph [0002]), thus improving compression efficiency.
Yet, the combination of teachings of Cho and Moon fails to explicitly disclose determining transform type candidates, wherein the transform type candidates vary according to whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed, and a first number of transform type candidates when the explicit determination of transform type is allowed is greater than a second number of transform type candidates when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed; the first number and the second number are both positive integers; and when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed, a horizontal direction transform type of a subblock is determined based on a width of the subblock, and a vertical direction transform type of the subblock is determined based on a height of the subblock as specified in the amended claim.
However, Kanoh further teaches the well-known concept of determining transform type candidates (see fig. 3 and/or fig. 16, paragraphs [0304] and [0422]), wherein the transform type candidates vary according to whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed (see fig. 3, where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 3 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is allowed, DCT-II, DST-VII, DCT-VIII are utilized as transform type candidates, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching), and a first number of transform type candidates (see fig. 3, where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 3 that “three” transform types DCT-II, DST-VII, DCT-VIII may be utilized as transform type candidates when explicit transform type determination is allowed, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching) when the explicit determination of transform type is allowed (see fig. 3, where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 3 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is allowed, DCT-II, DST-VII, DCT-VIII are utilized as transform type candidates, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching) is greater than a second number of transform type candidates (see fig. 16, where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 16 shows a combination of only “two” transform types horizontal DCT-II and vertical DST-VII are utilized, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching) when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed (see fig. 16, where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 16 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is not allowed only the combination of “two” transform types horizontal DCT-II and vertical DST-VII are utilized, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching), the first number (see fig. 3, where the examiner notes that by referring to fig. 3 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is allowed, three (3) explicit transforms types DCT-II, DST-VII, DCT-VIII are utilized as transform type candidates, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching) and the second number are both positive integers (see fig. 16, where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 16 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is not allowed only the combination of “two” (2) explicit transform types horizontal DCT-II and vertical DST-VII are utilized, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching); and when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed (see fig. 16, where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 16 shows for example, when explicit transform type determination is not allowed only the combination of “two” transform types horizontal DCT-II and vertical DST-VII are utilized, which is equivalent to the applicants teaching), a horizontal direction transform type (see fig. 16, e.g., “horizontal DCT2”) of a subblock (see fig. 9A) is determined based on a width of the subblock (see fig 9A, paragraph [0157], [0228], e.g., “4×4 sub-block”), and a vertical direction transform type (see fig. 16, e.g., “vertical DST7”) of the subblock (see fig. 9A) is determined based on a height of the subblock (see fig 9A, paragraphs [0157], [0228], e.g., “4×4 sub-block”).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of modifying the proposed combination of teachings of Cho and Moon above by further incorporating the proposed teachings of Kanoh above to perform such a modification to provide a method and apparatus for image processing that implements determining transform type candidates, wherein the transform type candidates vary according to whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed, and a first number of transform type candidates when the explicit determination of transform type is allowed is greater than a second number of transform type candidates when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed; and when the explicit determination of transform type is not allowed, a horizontal direction transform type of a subblock is determined based on a width of the subblock, and a vertical direction transform type of the subblock is determined based on a height of the subblock as well as to the solve the problem in a case where if the secondary transform is not performed properly, there is a possibility that the number of zero coefficients generated successively does not increase and becomes difficult to reduce the coding amount as taught by Kanoh et al. (see Kanoh, paragraph [0056]), thus enhancing compression efficiency even more.
Although Cho discloses video decoding (see abstract, paragraph [0155]) and encoding method (see abstract, paragraph [0155]), a decoder (see fig. 2) and an encoder (see fig. 1), comprising: a memory (see paragraph [0201]), for storing instructions executable by a processor (see paragraph [0201]), the processor (see paragraph [0201]), for performing the instructions (see paragraph [0201]) to execute operations of: deriving an intra prediction mode of the current block (see fig. 5 unit S510); and performing intra prediction on the current block (see fig. 5 unit S530, paragraph [0178]) based on the reference sample line (see paragraphs [0185]) and the derived intra prediction mode (see fig. 5 unit S510, paragraph [0111]), determining whether or not to partition the current block into a plurality of subblocks (see fig. 3, paragraphs [0097-0098]), the combination of teachings of Cho, Moon, and Kanoh fails to explicitly disclose whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed is indicated through flag information in a bitstream as specified in the amended claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koo further teaches whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed is indicated through flag information in a bitstream (see paragraphs [0226] and [0028]).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of modifying the proposed combination of teachings of Cho, Moon, and Kanoh above by further incorporating the proposed teachings of Koo above to perform such a modification to provide a video decoding method and apparatus for image transform processing that implements whether explicit determination of transform type is allowed is indicated through flag information in a bitstream as well as to the solve the problem in a case where demand for high-resolution and high-quality images such as high definition (HD) images and ultra-high definition (UHD) images has increased in various fields. As image data increasingly has higher resolution and higher quality, the amount of transmitted information or bit increases compared to the existing image data. Thus, when image data is transmitted using a medium such as the existing wired/wireless broadband line or when the image data is stored using the existing storage medium, cost for transmission and storage increases as taught by Koo et al. (see Koo, paragraph [0003]), thus enhancing compression efficiency to a greater extent.
As per claim [3], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1. In addition, Cho discloses the method according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1), wherein a horizontal direction transform type and a vertical direction transform type (see paragraphs [0073-0074]) of a subblock (see paragraph [0194]) are determined based on a shape of the subblock (see paragraph [0193]).
As per claim [4], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1. In addition, Cho discloses the method according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1), wherein inverse transform is omitted for some of the plurality of subblocks (see paragraphs [0090] and [0095]).
As per claim [8], the method according to claim 6, is analogous to claim 3, which is performed by claim 8.
As per claim [9], the method according to claim 6, is analogous to claim 4, which is performed by claim 9.
As per claim [13], the decoder according to claim 11, is analogous to claim 3, which is performed by claim 13.
As per claim [14], the decoder according to claim 11, is analogous to claim 4, which is performed by claim 14.
As per claim [18], the encoder according to claim 16, is analogous to claim 3, which is performed by claim 18.
As per claim [19], the encoder according to claim 16, is analogous to claim 4, which is performed by claim 19.
As per claim [21], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1. Yet, the combination of teachings of Cho and Moon fails to explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the horizontal direction transform type is a type of a horizontal direction transform kernel, and the vertical direction transform type is a type of a vertical direction transform kernel as claimed.
However, Kanoh further teaches the method according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1), wherein the horizontal direction transform type is a type of a horizontal direction transform kernel (see fig. 16 and/ fig. 21), and the vertical direction transform type is a type of a vertical direction transform kernel (see fig. 16 and/or fig. 21). Same motivation as to claim 1 applies here.
As per claim [22], the method according to claim 1, is analogous to claim 21, which is performed by claim 22.
As per claim [23], the decoder according to claim 11, is analogous to claim 21, which is performed by claim 23.
As per claim [24, the encoder according to claim 16, is analogous to claim 21, which is performed by claim 24.
Response to Amendment
7. The applicant's amendment received on 12/18/2025 in which claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 are (CANCELED), has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 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.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fu et al. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0294353 A1) discloses apparatus and method of
Sample adaptive offset for luma and chroma components.
Kim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0223542 A1) discloses sample adaptive offset (SAO) parameter signaling.
Shih et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0213570 A1) discloses method for processing projection-based frame that includes at least one projection face and at least one padding region packed in 360-degree virtual reality projection layout.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/R.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
February 5, 2026