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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Koo’s teachings are deficient because, “Those skilled in the art would understand that merely performing a primary transform using MTS is not equivalent to applying a secondary transform to the resulting primary transform coefficients.” Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument is technologically wrong, period. The skilled artisan knows that when the primary transform is performed using MTS, it necessarily follows that a secondary transform would be performed on MTS coefficients exactly how the claim is recited. Notably, Applicant’s argument is conclusory, devoid of any analysis, explanation, or evidence. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (indicating attorney argument is not evidence). Because Examiner finds Applicant’s argument completely mischaracterizes the art and has no explanation, let alone evidence, in support thereof, the argument is unpersuasive of error.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the combination of Koo and Iwamaura is deficient for failing to teach or suggest the features of claim 7. Examiner disagrees. Iwamaura very clearly teaches that treating a combined inter-intra coded block as a conventional inter block, as was done in the prior art, was disadvantageous when considering that energy distribution from the intra prediction part of the combined prediction can make, in some circumstances, certain transform selections inappropriate for the block. Such a teaching would obviously teach or suggest to the skilled artisan that the conventional treatment of treating a combined inter-intra block as an inter block is not appropriate and that treating the block, for purposes of transform selection, more like a special case or regular case of intra predicted, rather than inter predicted was more appropriate. As explained in the rejection, infra, Koo teaches that certain transform modes can be associated with intra prediction such that some transforms are not performed when the mode type is intra mode. These teachings, combined with Iwamaura’s teachings, that multi-hypothesis inter-intra mode should likewise not be allowed to have certain transform modes, teaches or suggests Applicant’s averred feature. Indeed, it is Examiner’s finding that Applicant’s claim 7 is merely a different way of articulating Iwamaura’s teachings.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 16–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo (US 2022/0394300 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koo discloses a method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a primary transform coefficient of the target block (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0117, 0153, and 0209: teaches a primary transform generating primary transform coefficients and a secondary transform being applied to the result of the primary transform in a low-frequency (reduced) region); applying a secondary transform to the primary transform coefficient based on a primary transform of the target block (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0117, 0153, and 0209: teaches a primary transform generating primary transform coefficients and a secondary transform being applied to the result of the primary transform in a low-frequency (reduced) region; Koo, ¶ 0343: teaches that it can be required that the primary transform be DCT2 for a secondary transform to occur; Koo, ¶ 0213: teaches a coded block flag (CBF) indicates whether luma or chroma block transform coefficients are present and can be used to indicate whether secondary transform is performed), wherein the secondary transform is applied to a multiple transform selection (MTS) primary transform coefficient (Koo, ¶ 0281: teaches the primary transform can be signaled using MTS; Koo, ¶ 0318: teaching the combinations of primary and secondary transforms can be predefined as various combinations and teaching the primary transform can be considered the MTS transform); and performing the conversion based on the primary and secondary transforms (Examiner notes the recited “conversion” is video encoding/decoding; see original claim 6; Koo, Title: teaches video encoding and decoding).
Regarding claim 2, Koo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the secondary transform is a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) (Koo, ¶ 0209: teaches the secondary transform can be called an LFNST), or wherein the secondary transform is applied to a non-discrete cosine transform 2 (non-DCT2) primary transform coefficient (Koo, ¶ 0343: teaches that it can be required that the primary transform be DCT2 for a secondary transform to occur).
Regarding claim 3, Koo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the MTS primary transform coefficient comprises at least one of: an intra MTS primary transform coefficient, or an inter MTS primary transform coefficient (Koo, ¶ 0191: teaches intra MTS and inter MTS; Koo, ¶ 0281: teaches the primary transform can be signaled using MTS; Koo, ¶ 0318: teaching the combinations of primary and secondary transforms can be predefined as various combinations and teaching the primary transform can be considered the MTS transform; Examiner notes that claim 1, under one interpretation, is requiring a certain transform in order to allow secondary transforms; Koo, ¶ 0202: explains that in some embodiments, MTS signals a primary transform other than DCT2, but that in other embodiments MTS can include the signaling of DCT2).
Regarding claim 4, Koo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the secondary transform is applied to at least one of: a DCT-8 transform coefficient, a DCT-5 transform coefficient, a DCT-X transform coefficient, wherein X is a constant, a discrete sine transform (DST)-7 transform coefficient, a DST-4 transform coefficient, a DST-1 transform coefficient, or a DST-Y transform coefficient, wherein Y is a constant (Koo, ¶ 0136 and Table 4: teaches DCT-8, DCT-5, DST-7, DST-1; Koo, ¶ 0134: teaches DST-4).
Regarding claim 6, Koo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Koo, Title: teaches video encoding and decoding).
Regarding claim 8, Koo discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the information of the target block comprises at least one of: a coding mode of the target block, a prediction mode of the target block, or residual information of the target block; or wherein the transform mode comprises at least one of: a transform kernel or a transform type, a transform pair, a transform class, a transform set (Koo, ¶ 0343: teaches that it can be required that the primary transform be DCT2 for a secondary transform to occur; see also Koo, ¶ 0318: teaching the combinations of primary and secondary transforms can be predefined as various combinations such that one type of transform can be disallowed based on the use of a nonconforming transform mode; Koo, ¶ 0661: teaches the transform can be selected based on prediction mode, block shape, and/or block size; see also Koo, ¶ 0355: teaching that intra prediction mode can define a particular transform set, which excludes other, nonconforming transform modes; see also, Koo, e.g. ¶ 0399: teaching zero-out controlling transform enabling).
Regarding claim 9, Koo discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the transform kernel comprises a primary transform or a secondary transform (Koo, e.g. ¶¶ 0117, 0153, and 0209: teaches a primary transform generating primary transform coefficients and a secondary transform being applied to the result of the primary transform in a low-frequency (reduced) region; see also Koo, e.g. ¶ 0377: teaching the primary transform index indicates a transform kernel); or wherein the primary transform comprises at least one of: an MTS (Koo, ¶ 0281: teaches the primary transform can be signaled using MTS; Koo, ¶ 0318: teaching the combinations of primary and secondary transforms can be predefined as various combinations and teaching the primary transform can be considered the MTS transform; Examiner notes that claim 1, under one interpretation, is requiring a certain transform in order to allow secondary transforms; Koo, ¶ 0202: explains that in some embodiments, MTS signals a primary transform other than DCT2, but that in other embodiments MTS can include the signaling of DCT2), an intra MTS, or an inter MTS (Koo, ¶ 0191: teaches intra MTS and inter MTS), or wherein the secondary transform comprises a LFNST (Koo, ¶ 0209: teaches the secondary transform can be called an LFNST).
Regarding claim 16, Koo discloses the method of claim 7, wherein whether a secondary transform is allowed to be applied to the target block is dependent on whether a primary transform of the target block is DCT-2 (Koo, ¶ 0343: teaches that it can be required that the primary transform be DCT2 for a secondary transform to occur).
Regarding claim 17, Koo discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Koo, Title: teaches video encoding and decoding).
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a method that stores the bitstream to a computer readable medium. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, Koo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the secondary transform is applied to the primary transform coefficient associated with a luma component of the target block, or wherein the secondary transform is applied to the primary transform coefficient associated with a luma component and a chroma component of the target block (Koo, ¶ 0213: teaches a coded block flag (CBF) indicates whether luma or chroma block transform coefficients are present and can be used to indicate whether secondary transform is performed; As explained in a previous Response to Arguments, Koo, ¶ 0213 explains a CBF flag is encoded to determine whether to perform a NSST (i.e. non-separable secondary transform). Koo then goes on to explain the CBF flag can be signaled specific to a certain color component (luma vs. chroma (Cb or Cr)). Therefore, Koo explicitly teaches that a flag determines whether a secondary transform is performed for each of the luma and chroma components. Such flexibility in signals covers the scenarios presented by Applicant’s claim, namely that the application of a secondary transform can be controlled individually for the luma and/or chroma components).
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 7, 11, 12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Iwamaura et al., CE6-related: Implicit transform selection for Multi-hypothesis inter-intra mode, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Document: JVET-M0482-v3, 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA, Jan. 9-18, 2019 (herein “Iwamaura”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Koo and Iwamaura teaches or suggests a method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a transform mode is allowed for the target block based on information of the target block (Koo, ¶ 0343: teaches that it can be required that the primary transform be DCT2 for a secondary transform to occur; see also Koo, ¶ 0318: teaching the combinations of primary and secondary transforms can be predefined as various combinations such that one type of transform can be disallowed based on the use of a nonconforming transform mode; Koo, ¶ 0661: teaches the transform can be selected based on prediction mode, block shape, and/or block size; see also Koo, ¶ 0355: teaching that intra prediction mode can define a particular transform set, which excludes other, nonconforming transform modes), wherein a combined inter-intra coded block is regarded as a special intra coded block to perform a transform process which is different from that of a regular intra coded block or a regular inter coded block (Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches treating multi-hypothesis inter-intra prediction as a special case different from intra coded or inter coded blocks for purposes of transform selection because some transform kernels, such as DCT-VIII, may be inappropriate for some inter-intra coded blocks); and performing the conversion based on the determining (see supra).
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 Iwamaura, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of adaptive transform selection based on prediction mode would be led to their relevant teachings and because Iwamaura itself teaches combining multiple transform selection (MTS) with multi-hypothesis inter-intra mode. Therefore, the combination is 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 Iwamaura used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Koo and Iwamaura teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a combined mode coded block with an intra prediction coded block comprises at least one of: a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) block, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) inter-intra block, a multi-hypothesis prediction block where one of hypotheses is intra coded, or a block wherein an intra-predication is applied on at least one sample (Examiner notes these are non-regular merge modes as evidenced by Robert, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches that treating multi-hypothesis inter-intra prediction as a regular intra mode for purposes of transform selection, which was prior art at the time, may have been ok in some circumstances but may also be inappropriate for some transform kernels, such as DCT-VIII).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koo and Iwamaura teaches or suggests the method of claim 11, wherein the multi-hypothesis prediction block where one of hypotheses is intra coded is an MHP coded block, or wherein the multi-hypothesis prediction block where one of hypotheses is intra coded is an decoder derived intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending mode coded block, or wherein the multi-hypothesis prediction block where one of hypotheses is intra coded is a temporal information based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending mode coded block, or wherein the multi-hypothesis prediction block where one of hypotheses is intra coded is an IBC and intra blended mode coded block (Examiner notes DIMD was prior art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date, as evidenced by Chuang cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Examiner further finds that combining MTS with a list of known prior art coding modes is not inventive; Examiner notes the purpose of the teaching of multi-hypothesis prediction is that one coding mode can be combined with another to produce a combined prediction for the block; Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches that treating multi-hypothesis inter-intra prediction as a regular intra mode for purposes of transform selection, which was prior art at the time, may have been ok in some circumstances but may also be inappropriate for some transform kernels, such as DCT-VIII).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Koo and Iwamaura teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a regular MTS is applied to at least one of: a GPM inter-intra block, a CIIP block, or a MHP block where one of hypotheses is intra coded; or wherein the regular MTS comprises at least one of: a DCT-8 or a DST-7 (Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches the regular MTS options were DCT2, DST7, and DCT8; Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches that treating multi-hypothesis inter-intra prediction as a regular intra mode for purposes of transform selection, which was prior art at the time, may have been ok in some circumstances but may also be inappropriate for some transform kernels, such as DCT-VIII).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Koo and Iwamaura teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a combined mode coded block with an intra prediction is regarded as a regular intra coded block to perform a transform process (Iwamaura, Introduction: teaches that treating multi-hypothesis inter-intra prediction as a regular intra mode for purposes of transform selection, which was prior art at the time, may have been ok in some circumstances but may also be inappropriate for some transform kernels, such as DCT-VIII and thus suggests it should be treated the same as a regular intra mode for purposes of transform selection).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo and Li (US 2020/0413047 A1)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Koo and Li teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a secondary transform is applied to at least one of: a CIIP block, a GPM inter-intra block, or a MHP block where one of hypotheses is intra coded (Li, ¶ 0220: teaches CIIP mode can get LFNST like planar and DC intra modes to reduce complexity).
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 Li, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of adaptive transform selection or secondary transforms based on prediction mode would be led to their relevant teachings and because Li itself teaches combining secondary transforms with multi-hypothesis inter-intra mode (CIIP). Therefore, the combination is 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 Li used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwamaura et al., CE6-related: Implicit transform selection for Multi-hypothesis inter-intra mode, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Document: JVET-M0482-v3, 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA, Jan. 9-18, 2019.
Lainema, Jani (2019). “CE6-related: 2-mode MTS with shape adaptive transform selection”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG11. JVET-M0304-v2.
Rosewarne (US 2024/0073431 A1) teaches applying or bypassing secondary transform to luma and chroma based on a set of rules (¶ 0058) and also teaches not jointly considering luma and chroma for secondary transform selection (¶ 0061). It also teaches using an index for the luma and chroma channels independent of one another (¶ 0151). Finally, it teaches that when the luma transform type is DCT-2, and additional luma secondary transform type, i.e. LFNST index, is signaled whereas a chroma secondary transform type is also signaled, and is signaled independently of whether the luma primary transform type is DCT-2 or not (¶ 0171).
Robert (US 2022/0377318 A1) teaches the inter coding modes in VVC include regular merge, CIIP, TPM/GEO, IBC, etc. (¶ 0051).
Chuang (US 2019/0215521 A1) teaches DIMD intra and inter predictors (e.g. Abstract).
Nam (US 2025/0233994 A1) teaches MTS, candidate sets, mode dependent secondary transforms, etc. (e.g. Abstract and ¶ 0095).
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
Prosecution Insights