DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 5–8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art is deficient for failing to teach or suggest the features added by way of amendment. Examiner finds the arguments moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Particularly, Zhao and Zhao ‘290 are relied upon for teaching the features added by way of amendment regarding the NxN coefficient group having the 1–L coefficients subjected to a secondary transform and the (L+1) to N coefficients being zeroed out and thus not eligible for having a LAST significant coefficient therein. Hsieh teaches a primary transform being performed on a whole transform block and a secondary transform being performed on a smaller subset of coefficients of the block. Hsieh also explains that when performing a secondary transform, the block is segregated into a zero-out region and a non zero-out region such that the region being zeroed out is the region not subjected to the secondary transform. Therefore, Hsieh teaches a sub-block of coefficients from the 1st coefficient to the Lth coefficient which are not zeroed out and has a last significant coefficient position available among the set [1–L]1 and another sub-block of coefficients from the (L+1)th coefficient to the Nth coefficient which are zeroed out and which does not have the possibility of containing the last non-zero coefficient within that range, [L+1, N]. Thus, Hsieh teaches a region from (L+1)th to Nth coefficients that, when the secondary transform process is enabled, will not have a last non-zero coefficient present within that range. In addition to these teachings of Hsieh, which alone might teach or suggest to the skilled artisan not decoding a secondary transform index when a last non-zero coefficient position is signaled indicating the last non-zero coefficient is within the zero-out region, the rejection additionally relies on the teachings of Karczewicz, Zhao, and Zhao ‘290. Karczewicz evidences that the skilled artisan had in their possession the technique of indicating transform selection based on side information such as the position of the last non-zero coefficient. That is, Karczewicz’s teachings reinforce the idea that looking to the position of the last non-zero coefficient can indicate or contraindicate certain transforms, which when combined with Hsieh’s teachings that a secondary transform is contraindicated when there is/are non-zero coefficient(s) within the secondary transform zero-out region as indicated by the signaled position of the last non-zero coefficient, teaches or suggests the averred subject matter. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find Applicant’s purported invention, in view of the prior art of record and level of skill in this art, to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 7–8.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,616,985 and claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,968,398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially overlapping subject matter, particularly with regard to the one-dimensional array of coefficients subjected to a non-separable secondary transform wherein the coefficients are designated based on whether they are outside the (L+1)th to N group wherein L is 8 and N is 16.
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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (US 2018/0103252 A1), Karczewicz (US 2014/0064361 A1), Zhao (US 2017/0094314 A1), and Zhao (US 2016/0219290 A1) (herein “Zhao ‘290”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Hsieh, Karczewicz, Zhao, and Zhao ‘290 teaches or suggests a video decoding method performed by a decoder, the method comprising: deriving quantized transform coefficients for a current block from a bitstream; deriving transform coefficients by performing a dequantization for the quantized transform coefficients; deriving residual block based on performing an inverse non-separable transform for the transform coefficients based on an inverse non-separable transform matrix; and generating reconstructed block based on the residual block and a prediction block for the current block (Hsieh, ¶¶ 0005 and 0054: teaches quantized transform coefficients being encoded into a bitstream for the purpose of later decoding wherein the quantized transform coefficients represent the residual data for the coding unit (i.e. block); see Hsieh, ¶ 0060: describing the reciprocal decoding process wherein the quantized transform coefficients are obtained from the bitstream, inverse quantized, and inverse transformed to obtain a residual block), wherein the inverse non-separable transform is a transform in which L transform coefficients are input and N transform coefficients are output, wherein L is less than N (Hsieh, ¶ 0026: teaches the decoder performs an inverse secondary transform prior to an inverse primary transform; Hsieh, ¶¶ 0026–0028: teach the secondary transform can be smaller than the primary transform, i.e. a reduced secondary transform; Hsieh, ¶ 0163: teaches the secondary transform is performed on a smaller, low frequency region of the transform matrix (e.g. top-left 4x4 coefficient group (CG)); Hsieh, ¶ 0186: teaches the execution of the secondary transform can include setting a zero-out region wherein of the total N transform coefficients for the primary transform, only a smaller subset of transform coefficients, L, are input and the N-L coefficients are considered zeroed out; see also Zhao ‘314 cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; It is noted that the claimed process is the reverse process performed at the decoder such that the secondary transform is performed first, followed by the primary transform such that only L transform coefficients are input into the secondary transform and N coefficients, which is the process of summing the non-zeroed out coefficients with the zeroed out coefficients), and wherein a non-separable transform index related to the inverse non-separable transform matrix is obtained from the bitstream based on a case that a last non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in positions of (L+1)th to Nth transform coefficients among transform coefficients of the current block (Hsieh, ¶ 0162: teaches signaling a secondary transform index indicating which secondary transform to use; Hsieh, ¶ 0026: teaches the whole point of the secondary transform is to reduce the distance between the DC coefficient and the last non-zero coefficient for the block; This teaching suggests the obvious corollary that where the last non-zero coefficient is not initially far away from the DC coefficient, it is not advantageous to implement a secondary transform; Hsieh, ¶ 0186: teaches the last non-zero coefficient must be in the sub-block for the secondary transform and that the coefficients in the L+1th to Nth transform coefficients are zero; Therefore, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to restrict usage of the secondary transform in the aforementioned instances and thus not signal an indication of a secondary transform variant if the requirements for the secondary transform are not indicated; For example, if there are non-zero coefficients in assumed zero-out regions when secondary transform is applied, then such a fact indicates that secondary transform was not applied at the encoder and is contraindicated; Hsieh does not appear to teach what Karczewicz teaches; Karczewicz, ¶ 0114: teaches transform selection can be based on position of last non-zero coefficient, number of non-zero coefficients, etc.), wherein the (L + 1)th to Nth transform coefficients are included within transform coefficients of a top-left 4x4 block of the current block, and wherein L is equal to 8 and N is equal to 16 (Zhao, ¶ 0193: teaches an N×N block wherein the first M coefficients are subjected to a NSST and the remaining N-M coefficients are set to zero; Zhao ‘290, ¶ 0276: teaches the zero-out coefficients beyond X×Y can be defined according to X=M/2 and Y=N/2 for an M×N coefficient block such that there is a constraint one the last significant coefficient to be within the X×Y region).
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 Hsieh, with those of Karczewicz, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor and because Karczewicz’s teachings regarding transform selection being based on position of last non-zero coefficients, represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hsieh and Karczewicz 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 Hsieh and Karczewicz, with those of Zhao, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice secondary transforms on a subset of coefficient would be led to their relevant teachings and because Zhao’s teachings regarding how the zero-out region can be set such that coefficients beyond some threshold cannot be a last significant coefficient inform how one could interpret Hsieh’s application of the secondary transform on a subset of coefficients, such that the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hsieh, Karczewicz, 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 Hsieh, Karczewicz, and Zhao, with those of Zhao ‘290, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice secondary transforms on a subset of coefficient would be led to their relevant teachings and because Zhao ‘290’s teachings regarding how the zero-out region (subset of coefficients) can be set to be half the full set of coefficients with Zhao’s teachings regarding setting the zero-out region for purposes of applying the secondary transform represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Hsieh, Karczewicz, Zhao, and Zhao ‘290 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 5 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, because encoding and decoding are known as reciprocal operations, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 7 lists essentially the same elements as claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saxena et al., “On Secondary Transforms for Prediction Residual,” Samsung, IEEE, 2012.
Alshina, et al., “Known Tools Performance Investigation for Next Generation Video Coding,” 52nd Meeting, Warsaw Poland, June 2015. This publication teaches, “One of 4 variants of predetermined secondary transforms which provides the best energy compaction in CU is applied and signaled to decoder with 2 bits.”
Tsukuba (US 2020/0020134 A1) teaches the SPS includes on/off flags for each encoding tool (¶ 0136).
Ikai (US 2020/0213626 A1) teaches adaptive multiple core transforms including DST7 and DCT8 (¶ 0222). Ikai also teaches the AMT flag for turning on and off AMT.
Tsukuba (US 2021/0297701 A1) paragraph [0153] teaches skipping the secondary transform based on the number of non-zero coefficients being smaller than a threshold. No non-zero coefficients would be under any threshold. Paragraph [0159] teaches sparsity of non-zero coefficients can suggest skipping the secondary transform.
Zhao (US 2018/0098081 A1) teaches skipping NSST “when there is no non-zero transformed coefficients in the current CU.” (¶ 0131).
Zhou (US 2015/0124872 A1) teaches skip mode when there are no non-zero coefficients (Abstract).
Zhao (US 2017/0094314 A1) teaches a zero-out NSST may be applied such that only the first M coefficients are calculated and the rest are zero (¶ 0193) and that the region of zeroed out coefficients cannot include a last significant coefficient position (¶ 0195).
Zhao (US 2016/0219290 A1) teaches a zero-out region for non-separable transforms wherein the position of the last non-zero coefficient is constrained when a secondary transform is applied (e.g. ¶¶ 0045, 0048, 0276, and 0279).
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 on 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 571-273-8300.
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
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
1 Examiner could have also explained this, perhaps more accurately as 0th coefficient to N-1th coefficient, but wanted to keep Applicant’s nomenclature of the last possible position being the Nth position instead of the (N-1)th position. Either way, we should all understand what we are talking about.
Prosecution Insights