DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims have been fully considered but are found moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The arguments presented in the Remarks of 04/30/2026, do not address the amended claim subject matter.
The instant amendment relies on conditional parsing of a “third flag”, by which determining the Horizontal and/or Vertical transform is to be used by decoder, as recited below;
“responsive to when the second flag signals that the second transform is not to be used in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction to decode the encoded video block, parsing at least a third flag of the at least one flag to determine in which one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block. “
Applicants’ amendment to claims though not introducing new matter, present a change in scope of the subject matter previously presented hence warranting a new search and consideration.
Claim Status
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 12-16 and 21-24 are pending.
Claims 5, 7-11 and 17-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 regarding an associated encoding method of the decoding method at claim 1, are added without introducing new matter.
Claim dependency is changed to show; Claim 6 depending from 1, and Claim 14 from 12.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
5. Claims 1-4, 6, 12-16 and 21-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Han Huang (hereinafter Huang) (US 2018/0332289) and Mehdi Salehifar et al., (hereinafter Salehifar) (US 2021/0211727) in view of Jani Lainema et al., (hereinafter Lainema) "CE6-related: Shape adaptive transform selection," Document: JVET-L0134-v2, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISOIIEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, 3-12 Oct. 2018.and further in view of Jiangle Chen et al., (hereinafter Chen) “Algorithm description for Versatile Video Coding and Test Model 2 (VTM 2)”, Geneva, CH, 10-18 July 2018; JVET-K1002-v2.
Re Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Huang discloses, a method performed by a video decoder (a decoder at Par.[0020]), the method comprising:
obtaining an encoded video block having at least one flag (obtaining at least one flag, e.g., EMT flag, Par.[0013], from among other two additional flags, Par.[0015]);
parsing a second flag[[,]] of the at least one flag[[,]] to determine (a second flag signaled in the bitstream, Par.[0021]-[0022])
if a second transform of a plurality of transforms is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (to identify the horizontal and vertical transforms to be used, among multiple DCT, DST types from EMT/AMT flags, Par.[0012, 0015, 0022]); and
responsive to when the second flag signals that the second transform is not to be used in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction to decode the encoded video block (according to the parsed flags being based on the respective vertical and horizontal transforms, Par.[0015, 0022]) to be used to decode the encoded video block signaled by additional flags, to select transform pairs of DCT-DST, according to using AMT, i.e., MTS, Par.[00116-0020] according with a flag and its transform index identified by at Par.[0020] and Tables 1-3 where the first and second flags are based on the horizontal and vertical transform selection, Par.[0022-0023] according to the three types of AMT selection for horizontal and vertical and horizontal or vertical transform selection Par.[0020-0021]),
parsing at least a third flag of the at least one flag to determine in which one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block (the transform type selected is determined by first and second flags and the index syntax TrIdx=0, 1, 2, 3, indicating the transform direction in various configurations for where both are of similar type A or B for index 0 and 1, or of different type A and B, at index 2 and 3, of Table 4 Par.[0063-0074]).
The art to Salehifar, expressly addresses the limitation reciting, parsing a second flag[[,]] of the at least one flag[[,]] to determine if a second transform of a plurality of transforms is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (parsing at Fig.5 a single flag is parsed in a case of enhanced multiple transform EMT_CU_Flag, S500 is signaled to decoder directing for horizontal and for vertical transforms per tables 1 and 2, Par.[0091-0096] step S535, Par.[0097]); and
Similarly, the art to Lainema, teaches the selection of the MTS transform type pairs according to the transform direction being horizontal or/and vertical as indicated by the parsed MTS_CU_flag values {0,1} by which determination second flags are indicating the direction of the MTS, for Horizontal parsing MTS_Hor_flag, and for Vertical by MTS_Ver_flag, as disclosed at (disclosed at Table 1, Sec.1 where MTS_CU_flag==1, is used to “both” determine which Horizontal or Vertical transform directions are used to decode according to “another transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block”. For the purpose of this examination, it is considered that the “another transform is to be used to decode” relates to a transform type other than the already parsed flags form among “the first and second flag of the at least one flag”, as being taught in Linema by selecting “which other one” for “a transform is to be used” as depicted from Table 1, for horizontal AND vertical as well for horizontal OR vertical transform flags, when the MTS_CU_flag =0, as in table 1 [heigh-lighted], below,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
In an analogous coding method, Chen teaches the video decoding method,
parsing a second flag[[,]] of the at least one flag[[,]] to determine if a second transform of a plurality of transforms is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction; and
responsive to when the second flag signals that the second transform is not to be used in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction to decode the encoded video block, parsing at least a third flag of the at least one flag to determine in which one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block (where, based on three signaled flags as part of the first flag, MTS_CU_flag{0,1}, being applied to the transform type of DCT/DST, sets according to the prediction mode and the transform direction the second and third flag, as Horizontal AND/OR Vertical according to their respective flags MTS_Hor_flag and MTS_Ver_flag applied as in table 3-10 by which determining the horizontal or vertical direction applied to a second transform, at Sec.3.5.2 per Table 3-6).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine Huang and Salehifar, by finding that both arts use the same video coding method of multiple transform selection by using flags to signal by encoder and be parsed at decoder, in order to determine the most cost effective transform from among multiple transform sets, and seeking techniques to improve coding efficiency and reduce complexity per Huang (Par.[0002]) which method is emphasized by Lainema, teaching the claimed matter of selecting from the MTS transform, the type pairs according to the transform direction being horizontal or/and vertical as indicated by the parsed MTS_CU_flag values {0,1} by which determination second flags are indicating the direction of the MTS, for Horizontal parsing MTS_Hor_flag, and for Vertical by MTS_Ver_flag, as disclosed at Table 1 and Sec.1, thus expressly teaching the MTS selection of different transform pairs according to three flags signaled to decoder similarly taught by Chen, hence deeming the combination predictable according to; “Another obviousness rationale being the “use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.” [Id. Rationale 2143.02 (I)(C).].
Re Claim 2. (Currently Amended) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Lainema teaches about,
before parsing the second flag to determine if the second flag signals that the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (per Table 1, for MTS_CU_flag = 0, where both horizontal and vertical directions are selected for intra prediction mode to be DST-7, or else DCT2 in both directions, Sec.I):
parsing a first flag of the at least one flag to determine if the first flag signals that a first transform of the plurality of transforms is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (parsing the first flag indicating the condition for both horizontal and vertical direction where both horizontal and vertical directions are selected for intra prediction mode to be DST-7, or else DCT2 in both directions, Sec.I) ; and
responsive to when the first flag is determined to signal that the first transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, decoding the encoded video block in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction using the first transform (as part of the MTS_CU_flag=1, being applied to the transform type of DCT/DST, sets according to the prediction mode and the transform direction Horizontal AND/OR Vertical according to their respective flags MTS_Hor_flag=0 and MTS_Ver_flag=0 applied as in Table 1, using the first transform DST-7, or for MTS_Hor_flag=1 and MTS_Ver_flag=1 applied as in Table 1, using the first transform as DCT-8, at Sec.I);
wherein the parsing the second flag is performed responsive to when the first flag is determined to signal that the first transform is not to be used to decode the encoded video block in both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (per Table 1, for MTS_CU_flag = 0, i.e., not used, both horizontal and vertical directions are selected for intra prediction mode to be DST-7, or else DCT2 in both directions, Sec.I).
Chen teaches these limitations at (Table 3-6 in Sec.3.5.2)
Re Claim 3. (Currently Amended) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein
Lainema teaches about,
the at least third flag of the at least one flag is parsed both to determine in which one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block and to determinethat a third transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block in the other one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (this limitation is expressly disclosed at Table 1, where MTS_CU_flag==1, is used to “both” determine which Horizontal or Vertical transform directions are used to decode according to “another transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block”. For the purpose of this examination it is considered that the “another transform is to be used to decode” relates to a transform type rather than the already parsed flags form among “the flag of the at least one flag”, as taught by Linema selecting in “which other one” a transform is to be used” at Table 1, below selectively cited for brevity,
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Huang teaches about, the at least third flag of the at least one flag is parsed both to determine in which one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction the second transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block and to determinethat a third transform is to be used to decode the encoded video block in the other one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (a flag signaled to and parsed at decoder, Par.[0022]) using AMT, i.e., MTS, Par.[0020] according with a flag and its transform index identified at Par.[0021] and depending on the transform direction selected from the transform set, Par.[0024-0026]).
Salehifar, teaches this claim according to (specifically at Fig.5 a single flag is parsed in a case of enhanced multiple transform EMT_CU_Flag, S500 is signaled to decoder and: IF EMT_CU_Flag=0 directing to NO step S515, where a regular (DCT2, DCT2) is used for horizontal and vertical directions, and otherwise, responsive to the EMT_CU_Flag=1 directing YES step S520, depending on the number of significant coefficients i.e., NZ, exceeding a threshold, applying the EMT-TU_Idx, index to signal then be parsed at decoder as separate flags EMT_CU_Flag= {0, 1} directing for horizontal and for vertical transforms per tables 1 and 2, Par.[0091-0096] step S535, Par.[0097]).
Re Claim 4. (Currently Amended) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim 3, further comprising:
Huang teaches,
decoding the encoded video block using the second transform in the one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction and using the third transform in the other one of the horizontal direction or the vertical direction (selecting from the MTS different transforms type, i.e., DCT/DST types, according to the horizontal and/or vertical transform used/parsed, signaled by a transform selection flag, Par.[0063, 0069-0074] and Table 4).
Salehifar teaches this claim at (selecting transform type from MTS, Par.[0089-0092] and Table 2).
Lainema teaches this at (Sec.1 Table 1).
5. (Cancelled)
Re Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim [[5]]1, wherein
Lainema teaches about, the plurality of transforms comprises a DCT-2 transform, a DST-7 transform, and a DCT-8 transform (per Table 1, the MTS comprises DCT-2, DST-7 and DCT-8 transforms, Sec.I) .
7.-11. (Cancelled)
Re Claim 12. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the decoder apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 13. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the decoder apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 2, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 14. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the decoder apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 5, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 15. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the decoder apparatus implementing each and every limitation over different syntax but similar semantic as the method claim 4, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 16. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the decoder apparatus implementing each and every limitation of the method claim 6, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe, mutatis mutandis.
17.-20. (Cancelled)
Re Claim 21. (New) This claim represents the method performed by a video encoder, (Huang; encoder at Par.[0088] Fig.2 incorporating AMT method Par.[0088]) obtaining a video block for encoding (Huang; determining the block characteristics, Par.[0005]) indicates that multiple transform selection is to be used (Huang; EMT/AMT Id. MTS, Par.[0002]) where each and every limitation is performed at the prediction loop of the encoder according to the method of claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidence mapped mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 22. (New) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim 21, further comprising
Huang teaches the, selecting the first transform as a transform that is similar to another transform of the plurality of transforms and is more computationally intensive than other transforms of the plurality of transforms (the transform type is selected based on performance criteria and the rate distortion optimization function, Par.[0088]).
Re Claim 23. (New) This claim represents the method performed by a video encoder, (Huang; encoder at Par.[0088] Fig.2 incorporating AMT method Par.[0088]) obtaining a video block for encoding (Huang; determining the block characteristics, Par.[0005]) indicates that multiple transform selection is to be used (Huang; EMT/AMT Id. MTS, Par.[0002]) where each and every limitation is performed at the prediction loop of the encoder according to the method of claim 6, hence it is rejected on the same evidence mapped mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 24. (New) Huang and Salehifar in view of Lainema and Chen disclose, the method of claim 21, wherein
Huang teaches that, the characteristic of the video block comprises a width or height of the video block (the characteristic of the video block is represented by its width and height in the selective application of the AMT, i.e., MTS coding method, Par.[0015] etc.).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other significant art:
Karam Naser et al., “CE6-related: Removed MTS CU-Flag and Reduced MMTS Pairs” Macao, CN, 3-12 Oct. 2018; JVET-L0264-v3. At Sec.2.1.
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights