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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response to Office Action mailed 18 November 2026, filed 28 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-16 and 24-26 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 11336917 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 14-16 and 24-25 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.
The term “it” in claims 14, 24, and 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “it” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What “is forced not to skip the inverse-transform” is unclear. Furthermore, forced to not skip appears to be a double negative and may be indefinite on its own.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2017/0195671 A1) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 11336917 B2).
Regarding claims 14, 24, and 25, Choi discloses a method of decoding an image, comprising: obtaining residual samples of a current transform block and obtaining reconstruction samples based on the residual samples of the current transform block [Choi: ¶ [0204]: For example, sample values of reconstructed pixels of each largest coding unit may be adjusted by using offset values reconstructed based on received offset parameters, and thus a largest coding unit having a minimized error between an original block and the largest coding unit may be reconstructed], wherein the current transform block is a coding block [Choi: ¶ [0117]: In particular, the intra predictor 1120 and the inter predictor 1115 may determine a partition mode and a prediction mode of each coding unit from among the coding units having a tree structure while considering the maximum size and the maximum depth of a current largest coding unit, and the transformer 1125 may determine whether to split the transformation unit having a quad tree in each coding unit from among the coding units having a tree structure] or one of two transform blocks generated by splitting the coding block [Choi: ¶ [0143]: The video decoding apparatus 100 may determine at least one transformation unit split from the coding unit by using information about a split shape of the transformation unit parsed from the bitstream. The video decoding apparatus 100 may hierarchically split the transformation unit in the same manner as in the coding unit described above. The coding unit may include a plurality of transformation units], wherein whether the coding block is split into the two transform blocks or not is determined based on a first flag decoded from a bitstream [Choi: ¶ [0010]: The video decoding method may further include determining at least one prediction unit split from the coding unit by using information about a partition type parsed from the bitstream], wherein in response to the first flag indicating that coding block is split into the two transform blocks, based on a second flag decoded from the bitstream, whether the coding block is split symmetrically or asymmetrically is determined [Choi: ¶ [0152]: The partition type may include asymmetrical partitions, partitions having any shape, and partitions having a geometrical shape], wherein, based on a third flag decoded from the bitstream, whether the coding block is split in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction is determined [Choi: ¶ [0089]: Also, in operation 770, when split_half_flag is "0", the video decoding apparatus 100 may parse split_position_idx from the bitstream. split_position_idx may have 1 bit and may be included in the split position information. In operation 771, when split_position_idx is "0", the video decoding apparatus 100 may select a position corresponding to 1/4 of the current block as a spilt position. For example, when split_direction_flag indicates a vertical direction, the video decoding apparatus 100 may split a position corresponding to 1/4 of the width of the current block from a left side].
Choi may not explicitly disclose wherein in response to the current transform block being one of the two transform blocks resulting from splitting the coding block, decoding a transform skip flag, indicating whether an inverse-transform is skipped or not, from the bitstream is omitted, and it is forced to skip the inverse-transform to obtain the residual samples of the current transform block, and wherein in response the current transform block being the coding block, whether the inverse-transform is skipped or not to obtain the residual samples of the current transform block is determined based on the transform skip flag explicitly decoded from the bitstream.
However, Hashimoto discloses wherein in response to the current transform block being one of the two transform blocks resulting from splitting the coding block, decoding a transform skip flag, indicating whether an inverse-transform is skipped or not, from the bitstream is omitted, and it is forced to skip the inverse-transform to obtain the residual samples of the current transform block, and wherein in response the current transform block being the coding block, whether the inverse-transform is skipped or not to obtain the residual samples of the current transform block is determined based on the transform skip flag explicitly decoded from the bitstream [Hashimoto: Claim 2: a TU encoder that encodes a transform coefficient by a regular residual coding which is used for generating a syntax element specifying a position of a last significant coefficient in a scanning order within a transform block or the transform skip residual coding which is a coding without a transform, wherein: if a value of the transform skip flag is equal to zero or a value of the residual coding disabled flag equal to one, the TU decoder uses the regular residual coding, otherwise, the TU decoder uses the transform skip residual coding, and a value of the residual coding disabled flag is inferred to be equal to zero, when the residual coding disabled flag is not present].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the skip flag method taught by Hashimoto with the processing method of Choi in order to process various sized sub-blocks in video data.
Regarding Claim 15, Choi in view of Hashimoto disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 14, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Hashimoto discloses wherein in response to the coding block being split asymmetrically, one of the two transform blocks has 1/4 size of the coding block and the other of the two transform blocks has 3/4 size of the coding block [Choi: ¶ [0089]: Also, in operation 770, when split_half_flag is "0", the video decoding apparatus 100 may parse split_position_idx from the bitstream. split_position_idx may have 1 bit and may be included in the split position information. In operation 771, when split_position_idx is "0", the video decoding apparatus 100 may select a position corresponding to 1/4 of the current block as a spilt position. For example, when split_direction_flag indicates a vertical direction, the video decoding apparatus 100 may split a position corresponding to 1/4 of the width of the current block from a left side].
Regarding Claim 16, Choi in view of Hashimoto disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 15, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi in view of Hashimoto discloses wherein locations of the two transform blocks in the coding block are determined based on a fourth flag decoded from the bitstream [Choi: ¶ [0090]; and FIG. 20: 2032 and 2034].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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 at 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights