DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 06/05/2026 in which no claims are cancelled, no claims are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On pages 2–4 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art is deficient in failing to teach or suggest the claimed features. Examiner disagrees and is unpersuaded of error. For example, on page 3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Koo defines the last significant coefficient using absolute coordinates relative to the corners. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because absolute coordinates and relative coordinates are opposites and arguing absolute relative to something butchers the language skilled artisans use to distinguish between such coordinates. In this case, absolute coordinates relative to something is just relative addressing. Because the argument is a mere semantic one rather than a technological argument regarding a nonobvious difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, Examiner is unpersuaded of error. As another example, Applicant argues that Koo teaches a block corner, not a specific coefficient position. This argument is also found unpersuasive of error. Koo teaches a corner of a zero-out block, which is a specific coefficient position and also teaches the last significant coefficient, which is also a specific coefficient position. Examiner is unclear regarding Applicant’s arguments.
On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Piao’s teachings regarding a distance being determined to the last significant coefficient from an origin are deficient to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Examiner is unpersuaded that such a teaching would not teach or suggest Applicant’s averred feature. As indicated in the preceding Office Action, Applicant’s published paragraphs [0065] or [0127] seem instructive and mirrors the disclosure of Piao. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 19, and 21–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 2022/0159276 A1), Zhao (US 2019/0246142 A1), and Piao (US 2016/0050426 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Koo, Zhao, and Piao teaches or suggests a method comprising: determining that a zeroing process is applied to a block of transform coefficients (Koo, ¶ 0011: teaches zero-out blocks are determined according to signaling (e.g. flags) in the bitstream, such as whether MTS is applied or not; While Koo teaches zero-out sizes based on MTS, which Examiner interprets under BRI as a zeroing process, the prior art describes zeroing processes beyond merely zero-out size; Zhao, ¶¶ 0105 and 0106: teaches determining a zero-out process, e.g. number of coefficients to zero-out, based on transform type, but also teaches other methods; Zhao, e.g. ¶¶ 0105, 0110, 0112, and 0123: teaches several zero-out methods in addition to simply determining the number of coefficients to zero-out); determining a position of a last coefficient in scanning order non-zeroed out by the zeroing process (Koo, Abstract: explains the zero-out block is the smaller sub-block that has significant (i.e. non-zero) coefficients and that the rest of the block is zeroed-out; Koo, ¶¶ 0017 and 0150: teaches the last significant coefficient signaling is limited to the smaller region that is not zeroed-out; Koo, ¶¶ 0203–0204: teaches the width and height of the transform block can be changed (reduced) to coincide with the smaller non-zero out size and that the position of the last significant coefficient can be coded based on the new smaller size rather than the larger, full block size using, for example log2ZoTbWidth, rather than log2TbWidth); decoding a distance from a position of a last significant coefficient of the block in scanning order to the determined position (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0187 and 0233: teaches the last significant coefficient coordinate information expresses the distance in the x and y directions; The skilled artisan knows the “origin point” for the x and y directions are typically the top corner of the block; However, in the same field of endeavor, Piao, ¶¶ 0003 and 0029: teaches the distance between the last significant coefficient and a position (either a low frequency position like the top-left corner or a high frequency position like the bottom-right corner) may be determined; see also Piao, ¶ 0035: teaching the position of the last significant coefficient is a value corresponding to a distance from a high frequency region of the coding unit to the last position); determining the position of the last significant coefficient of the block based on the distance and the determined position (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0187 and 0233: teaches the last significant coefficient coordinate information expresses the distance in the x and y directions; The skilled artisan knows the “origin point” for the x and y directions are typically the top corner of the block); and reconstructing the block of transform coefficients based on the position of the last significant coefficient of the block (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0062, 0069, and 0070: teaches the point of the coding algorithm is to reconstruct the block).
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 Koo, with those of Zhao, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice zeroing out coefficients would be led to their relevant teachings and because although Koo may only describe zero-out processes with respect to zero-out size and based on transform kernel, Zhao explains the skilled artisan would be led to consider even more sophisticated zero-out processes. Thus, the combination amounts to a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Koo and Zhao used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
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 Koo and Zhao, with those of Piao, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice coefficient coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because Piao explains how Koo may code the last significant coefficient of the resized zero-out region so that the last significant coefficient can more efficiently be coded from the higher frequency position (bottom-right) rather than the less efficient low frequency position (top-left). Thus, because the prior art solutions were separately known in the same field of endeavor, the combination amounts to a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Koo, Zhao, and Piao used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koo, Zhao, and Piao teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the zeroing process is applied to the block of transform coefficients comprises determining that a zeroing process is applied based on a type of transform process applied to the block (Zhao, ¶¶ 0105 and 0106: teaches determining a zero-out process, e.g. number of coefficients to zero-out, based on transform type; Zhao, e.g. ¶¶ 0105, 0110, 0112, and 0123: teaches several zero-out methods in addition to simply determining the number of coefficients to zero-out).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koo and Zhao teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, comprising determining a type of zeroing process based on a type of transform process applied to the block (Zhao, ¶¶ 0105 and 0106: teaches determining a zero-out process, e.g. number of coefficients to zero-out, based on transform type; Zhao, e.g. ¶¶ 0105, 0110, 0112, and 0123: teaches several zero-out methods in addition to simply determining the number of coefficients to zero-out).
Claim 5 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 6 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 3, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 3, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Koo, Zhao, and Piao teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein decoding the distance comprises decoding a first distance in a horizontal direction and a second distance in a vertical direction (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0187 and 0233: teaches the last significant coefficient coordinate information expresses the distance in the x and y directions).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Koo, Zhao, and Piao teaches or suggests the method of claim 21, wherein determining the position of the last significant coefficient of the block based on the distance and the determined position comprises: subtracting the first distance from a horizontal component of the determined position to obtain a first component of the position of the last significant coefficient of the block; and subtracting the second distance from a vertical component of the determined position to obtain a second component of the position of the last significant coefficient of the block (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0187 and 0233: teaches the last significant coefficient coordinate information expresses the distance in the x and y directions; Koo, Abstract: explains the zero-out block is the smaller sub-block that has significant (i.e. non-zero) coefficients and that the rest of the block is zeroed-out; Koo, ¶¶ 0017 and 0150: teaches the last significant coefficient signaling is limited to the smaller region that is not zeroed-out; Koo, ¶¶ 0203–0204: teaches the width and height of the transform block can be changed (reduced) to coincide with the smaller non-zero out size and that the position of the last significant coefficient can be coded based on the new smaller size rather than the larger, full block size using, for example log2ZoTbWidth, rather than log2TbWidth; Piao, ¶ 0030: teaches the position information can be coordinate values with respect to the last position and the “second” point origin wherein the second point origin is the high frequency bottom-right corner rather than the typical low frequency top-left corner; see also treatment of claim 1).
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 21, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 22, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 22 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 25 lists the same elements as claim 21, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 26 lists the same elements as claim 22, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 22 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 27 lists the same elements as claim 23, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 23 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 28 lists the same elements as claim 24, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 24 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
M. Koo, M. Salehifar, J. Lim, S. Kim, “CE 6-1.1 (c,d): Fast DST-7/DCT-8 based on DFT and 32 point MTS based on skipping high frequency coefficients,” document Joint Video Experts Team of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JVET-L0132, Macao, CN, Oct. 2018.
Lee (US 2021/0274197 A1) teaches a zero-out region (Fig. 24 and accompanying language) and that the last significant coefficient is only with respect to the non-zero out region and that significant coefficients could have been in the zero-out region that was zeroed-out, i.e. skipped (¶¶ 0339–0340). Lee also teaches a syntax element for a last significant coefficient position prefix that adjusts the last coefficient to be outside the zero-out region such that the maximum range of the position is limited to a smaller value thus achieving bit savings (¶ 0340 and Figs. 21–23).
M. Koo, M. Salehifar, “CE 6.1.11: AMT replacement and restriction”, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 29/WG 11 JVET-K0096, 11th meeting, Ljubljana, SI, 10-18 July 2018.
Sole et al., "Transform Coefficient Coding in HEVC, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Dec. 2012. Section IV(A) teaches the conventional process of coding the last significant coefficient position includes a prefix part.
LeLeannec (US 2020/0382810 A1) teaches the conventional process of coding the last significant coefficient position includes a prefix part (e.g. ¶ 0075).
Nalci (US 2020/0396487 A1) teaches zero-out and restricting the last coefficient to be within the bounds of the region not zeroed-out, including possibly skipping the signaling of the last coefficient (e.g. ¶¶ 0035, 0037, and 0107).
Koo (US 2022/0086490 A1) teaches the width and height of the transform block can be changed (reduced) to coincide with the smaller non-zero out size and that the position of the last significant coefficient can be coded based on the new smaller size rather than the larger, full block size (¶ 0322) and teaches the use of, for example log2ZoTbWidth, rather than log2TbWidth for zeroed out blocks (e.g. ¶ 0369).
Strom (US 2015/0281706 A1) teaches the last significant coefficient position is signaled using the origin as the top-left corner of the block (¶ 0009).
Wang (US 2014/0064365 A1) teaches the last significant coefficient is coded by its coordinates (x, y) relative to the top-left corner (¶ 0126).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights