DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 12/30/2025 in which no claims are cancelled, claims 1 and 13 are amended, and claim 14 is added as a new claim.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9–10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there is a bright-line rule that “circuit” or “circuitry” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner disagrees. Such analyses are highly fact-specific and there has been no authority that has made a per se rule about the words, “circuit” or “circuitry.” Applicant argues, “Therefore, it is well settled that the term “circuitry” is not a nonce word, is not equivalent to “means,” and therefore does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.” The MPEP explicitly disagrees. “Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.” MPEP 2181(I)(A). MPEP 2181(I)(A) is clear that the “circuit” example was found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) according to the Court’s analysis. The MPEP explains that in Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332, the court found it important that the description of the function of that circuit connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike that case, Examiner finds Applicant’s use of the term, “circuitry configured to” could just as easily be substituted among any other nonce term exemplified in the MPEP, such as processor, mechanism, unit, component, element, machine, etc. and the skilled artisan would be no better or worse position to understanding a sufficiently definite structure for performing the function(s) recited in the claims. In other words, Applicant’s use of term “circuitry configured to” is obviously a placeholder or nonce term for a “black box,” criticized in Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328, because “processor,” “module,” “unit,” etc. in place of “circuitry” would have identically generic meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted Applicant advances no argument regarding how one skilled in the art would interpret any specified structure from such a term. Furthermore, Examiner finds Applicant’s Specification describes no circuit diagrams or listing of circuit components or any other sufficient structural arrangement that would connote the structure of the claimed special purpose circuit. MPEP 2181(II)(B). Examiner finds that, by definition, a processor is a circuit (a processor is defined as an integrated, highly complex circuit using semiconducting material, containing transistors organized into logic gates) and the term, “processor” has routinely been found to be subject to invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) where the claim otherwise covers a “black box.” MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, it would make no sense to subject the term, “processor,” to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) scrutiny while advancing that a per se rule exists for the equivalent term, “circuitry.” Because this is a computer-implemented technology, Applicant’s use of the term, “circuitry configured to,” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) according to this analysis and the analysis described, infra. Accordingly, the treatment of claims 1–12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is sustained.
On pages 12–13 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art is deficient for failing to teach or suggest an identifier of a primary transform for chrominance being based on whether the adaptive primary transform flag for chroma is true or false. Examiner disagrees. First, the previous rejection relied on Rosewarne for the proposition that it would be obvious not to have a transform value for a transform index when there is no transform to be performed. That previous rejection broadly interpreted (i.e. under BRI) the value of the adaptive primary transform flag (true or false) could indicate no transform at all. Based on Applicant’s amendment, a different interpretation (i.e. under BRI) is now applied to the claim wherein the emphasis is now on whether adaptive multiple transform (AMT) is enabled or disabled. Seregin teaches that optionally chroma components can infer their coding mode decisions from their corresponding luma component coding mode decisions. Chen teaches that a default transform mode of DCT-II can be signaled when AMT is disabled, which also suggests that where AMT is enabled, a particular, i.e. non-default, transform identifier must be signaled or determined. Therefore, in combination Seregin and Chen teaches that the chroma mode decision parameters can be inherited from luma components and that a non-default value indicating a transform type for chroma would be appropriate when AMT is enabled. Accordingly, Applicant’s averred primary transform identifier for chroma being set to the primary transform identifier for luma based on the AMT being true is taught or suggested by the combination of Seregin and Chen.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 13–14.
35 USC § 112(f)
35 U.S.C. 112(f) reads as follows:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1–12 and 14 disclose limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) under the analysis described in MPEP 2181.
According to MPEP 2181, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked by claim limitations that meet the following conditions: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (2) the non-structural term is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (3) the non-structural term is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. “Where a claim limitation meets the 3-prong analysis and is being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the examiner will include a statement in the Office action that the claim limitation is being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.” MPEP 2181(I)(C).
In claims 1–12 and 14, Applicant uses the phrase “circuitry configured to” for several limitations. In each case, Examiner interprets such language as a non-structural term followed by a linking word or phrase, which links the non-structural term to recited functions. In each case, the non-structural term is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure. Therefore, the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). MPEP 2181(I).
Examiner finds that the circuitry operable to perform the recited functions of claims 1–12 and 14 could be broadly construed as a computer or similar processing circuit or system of processors. Regarding the interpretation that the units might be a processor or group of processors, the Examiner considered whether the functions recited in claims 1–12 and 14 are functions typically found in a commercially available off-the-shelf processor. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (functions such as "processing," "receiving," and "storing" that can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming do not require disclosure of more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions). Because the recited functions are the substance and focus of the invention claimed, the Examiner finds these functions are not typically available in an off-the-shelf processor. Therefore, the Examiner finds the functional recitations do not connote to the skilled artisan sufficient structure of the processors (or similar) claimed. Accordingly, the phrase “[unit] configured to” is interpreted as invoking the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with both the written description and enablement requirements. The claims represent single means claims. A single element cannot rely on 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to incorporate the structure from the specification because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) only applies to claims to a combination (more than one element). Without the benefit of the 112(f) construction, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim extends to all ways of achieving the claimed results, including those known and unknown to the inventor. Such an approach amounts to purely functional claiming in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Single means claims violate the written description requirement because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Single means claims violate the enablement requirement because the claim covers all ways of achieving the stated result and the disclosure cannot be enabled for all ways, known and unknown.
Examiner considered whether the functions recited in claims 1–12 and 14 are functions typically found in a commercially available off-the-shelf processor. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (functions such as "processing," "receiving," and "storing" that can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming do not require disclosure of more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions). Because the recited functions are the substance of the invention claimed, it would make little sense to find that these functions are typically available in an off-the-shelf processor. Therefore, the Examiner finds the recited functions are not typically available in an off-the-shelf processor, and thus, the functional recitations do not connote sufficient structure of the processor or circuit claimed. Accordingly, the term "circuit configured to" is interpreted as a non-structural term and is used merely as a substitute for the term "means for," thus invoking the application of § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1–12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claims 1–12 represent single means claims. A single element cannot rely on 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to incorporate the structure from the specification because 35 U.S.C. 112(f) only applies to claims for a combination (more than one element). Without the benefit of the 112(f) construction, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim extends to all ways of achieving the claimed results, including those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1–12 and 14 contain limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1–6 and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin (US 2017/0272748 A1) and Chen et al., “Algorithm Description of Joint Exploration Test Model 3,” JVET-C1001_v3, Geneva, CH, June 2016.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests an image processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to perform an inverse orthogonal transform of chrominance (Seregin, ¶ 0139: teaches the well-known process of transforming residual pixels values into the frequency domain using orthogonal transforms such as DCT; Seregin, ¶ 0141: teaches performing the inverse orthogonal transform to recover the residual block of pixels from the frequency domain back to the spatial domain; see also Seregin, ¶ 0058: also teaching inverse transform at the decoder) using information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform of chrominance derived on a basis of information regarding an inverse orthogonal transform of luminance (Seregin, ¶¶ 0071 and 0072: explain that luma and chroma blocks are typically coded using the same information such that coding mode decisions for the luma blocks (partitioning, transforms, etc.) are used to derive the coding parameters for the chroma blocks; Seregin, ¶ 0073: explicitly lists coding mode being a parameter for a chroma block that can be derived from a corresponding luma block; see also Seregin, ¶ 0075: explaining a flag can be used to indicate the chroma parameters are derived from the luma parameters; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT), wherein the information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform of chrominance comprises a primary transform of chrominance identifier inferred from a primary transform of luminance identifier and a secondary transform of chrominance identifier inferred from a secondary transform of luminance identifier (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT), the primary transform of chrominance identifier indicating which inverse primary transform is to be applied and the secondary transform of chrominance identifier indicating which inverse secondary transform is to be applied (Chen, Section 2.4.1.: teaches whether AMT applies or not is signaled as a flag; Chen, Section 2.4.1.: explicitly explains that Adaptive Multiple Transform (AMT) “utilizes multiple selected transforms from the DCT/DST families.”), the inverse primary transform being carried out on an output of the inverse secondary transform (Chen, Section 2.4.2 and Fig. 21: teach the secondary transform follows or precedes the primary transform, respectively, for the encoder and decoder), wherein the information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform includes an adaptive primary transform flag indicating whether an adaptive inverse primary transform of adaptively selecting one inverse orthogonal transform from between a plurality of different inverse orthogonal transforms and using the selected orthogonal transform as an inverse primary transform is to be applied (Chen, Section 2.4.1.: teaches whether AMT applies or not is signaled as a flag; Chen, Section 2.4.1.: explicitly explains that Adaptive Multiple Transform (AMT) “utilizes multiple selected transforms from the DCT/DST families.”), wherein a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is set to a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT), wherein the information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform includes a primary transform identifier indicating which inverse primary transform is to be applied to inverse primary transforms in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches flags signaled to identify the horizontal and vertical primary transforms to be used), and wherein a value of the primary transform identifier of chrominance is set to a value of the primary transform identifier of luminance in response to the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance being true (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches that when AMT is turned off, DCT-II is applied, which is a default mode when AMT is disabled; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT; Seregin teaches that optionally chroma components can infer their coding mode decisions from their corresponding luma component coding mode decisions; Chen teaches that a default transform mode of DCT-II can be signaled when AMT is disabled, which also suggests that where AMT is enabled, a particular, i.e. non-default, transform identifier must be signaled or determined).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have understood the transforms described in Seregin to include orthogonal transforms although not explicitly stated because the skilled artisan recognizes DCT to be a type of orthogonal transform. Evidence is cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action. This rationale to modify the teachings of Seregin to read on the claims applies to all uses of Seregin 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 Seregin, with those of Chen, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because Seregin mentions adaptive multiple transform (AMT), which Chen more fully explains under the “Transform Improvement” heading, and because such a 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 Seregin and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform the inverse primary transform as the inverse orthogonal transform (Seregin, ¶ 0139: teaches the well-known process of transforming residual pixels values into the frequency domain using orthogonal transforms such as DCT; Seregin, ¶ 0141: teaches performing the inverse orthogonal transform to recover the residual block of pixels from the frequency domain back to the spatial domain; see also Seregin, ¶ 0058: also teaching inverse transform at the decoder).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform an inverse primary horizontal transform which is the inverse primary transform in the horizontal direction and an inverse primary vertical transform which is the inverse primary transform in the vertical direction as the inverse orthogonal transform (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches flags signaled to identify the horizontal and vertical primary transforms to be used; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is set to a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT) in a case in which a prediction type of a coding block to which a transform block to be processed belongs is inter prediction (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches, “For inter prediction residual, however, only one transform set, which consists of DST-VII and DCT-VIII, is used for all inter modes and for both horizontal and vertical transforms.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is set to a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance in a case in which a prediction type of a coding block to which a transform block to be processed belongs is inter prediction (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches, “For inter prediction residual, however, only one transform set, which consists of DST-VII and DCT-VIII, is used for all inter modes and for both horizontal and vertical transforms.”) or a case in which the prediction type is intra prediction in which prediction modes for luminance and chrominance match each other (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is set to a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT) in a case in which a chrominance adaptive primary transform information inference flag indicating whether the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is to be inferred on a basis of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance is true (Seregin, ¶ 0075: teaches a flag can be sent to instruct the decoder to reuse, or derive from, the luma coding mode information for the chroma coding mode information).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform includes a secondary transform identifier indicating which inverse secondary transform is to be applied (Chen, 2.4.2: teaches secondary transform identifiers are signaled explicitly; “For each transform set, the selected non-separable secondary transform candidate is further specified by the explicitly signaled CU-level MDNSST index.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a value of the secondary transform identifier of chrominance is set to a value of the secondary transform identifier of luminance (Seregin, ¶¶ 0071 and 0072: explain that luma and chroma blocks are typically coded using the same information such that coding mode decisions for the luma blocks (partitioning, transforms, etc.) are used to derive the coding parameters for the chroma blocks; Seregin, ¶ 0073: explicitly lists coding mode being a parameter for a chroma block that can be derived from a corresponding luma block; see also Seregin, ¶ 0075: explaining a flag can be used to indicate the chroma parameters are derived from the luma parameters; Chen, Section 2.4.2 and Fig. 21: teach the secondary transform follows or precedes the primary transform respectively for the encoder and decoder).
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in method form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seregin and Chen teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to select between setting the value of the primary transform identifier of chrominance to the value of the primary transform identifier of luminance or a predetermined value in response to whether the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is true or false (Seregin, ¶¶ 0071 and 0072: explain that luma and chroma blocks are typically coded using the same information such that coding mode decisions for the luma blocks (partitioning, transforms, etc.) are used to derive the coding parameters for the chroma blocks; Seregin, ¶ 0073: explicitly lists coding mode being a parameter for a chroma block that can be derived from a corresponding luma block; see also Seregin, ¶ 0075: explaining a flag can be used to indicate the chroma parameters are derived from the luma parameters; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks include primary and second transform information, including AMT; Chen, 2.4.1: teaches that when AMT is turned off, DCT-II is applied, i.e. a default or predetermined value for the selected transform mode).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin, Chen, and Rosewarne (US 2015/0249828 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seregin, Chen, and Rosewarne teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of chrominance is set to a value of the adaptive primary transform flag of luminance (Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT) in a case in which a size of a short side of a transform block to be processed of chrominance is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (It does not appear Seregin or Chen teaches thresholding the size of the luma or chroma transform; However, such an approach is obvious in view of the level of skill in the art, as evidenced by the teachings of Rosewarne; Rosewarne, ¶ 0095: teaches that when the luma transform is 4x4 and the color sampling ratio is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, there is a problem in that the chroma transform is smaller than 4x4, which are generally not available; In such cases, the chroma transform that is used is one in which it overlaps more than one luma transform unit; In that case, the chroma transform would not have a single luma transform from which to inherit the transform’s properties, thus a default transform, such as the DCT-II of Chen, would be obviously desirable in such instances; Therefore, the thresholding and size constraints in the instant claim are an obvious way of handling the 4x4 luma block scenario when the chroma channels are downsampled in the 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 format).
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 Seregin and Chen, with those of Rosewarne, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because Rosewarne explains a well-known issue between luma and downsampled chroma channels when considering inheritance, and because such a 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 Seregin, Chen, and Rosewarne used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seregin, Chen, and Rosewarne teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform an inverse primary horizontal transform which is an inverse primary transform in a horizontal direction and an inverse primary vertical transform which is an inverse primary transform in a vertical direction as the inverse orthogonal transform (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches flags signaled to identify the horizontal and vertical primary transforms to be used; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information, including AMT), a transform type of the inverse primary horizontal transform is set on a basis of a horizontal transform set and a primary horizontal transform specifying flag (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches, “flags are signaled to identify the horizontal and vertical transform to be used) in a case in which a size of a picture width of a transform block to be processed of chrominance is greater than a predetermined threshold value (It does not appear Seregin or Chen teaches thresholding the size of the luma or chroma transform; However, such an approach is obvious in view of the level of skill in the art, as evidenced by the teachings of Rosewarne; Rosewarne, ¶ 0095: teaches that when the luma transform is 4x4 and the color sampling ratio is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, there is a problem in that the chroma transform is smaller than 4x4, which are generally not available; In such cases, the chroma transform that is used is one in which it overlaps more than one luma transform unit; In that case, the chroma transform would not have a single luma transform from which to inherit the transform’s properties, thus a default transform in such instances would be obviously desirable; Therefore, the thresholding and size constraints in the instant claim are an obvious way of handling the 4x4 luma block scenario when the chroma channels are downsampled in the 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 format), and a transform type of the inverse primary vertical transform is set on a basis of a vertical transform set and a primary vertical transform specifying flag (Chen, 2.4.1: teaches, “flags are signaled to identify the horizontal and vertical transform to be used) in a case in which a size of a picture height of the transform block to be processed of chrominance is greater than a predetermined threshold value (Rosewarne, ¶ 0095: teaches that when the luma transform is 4x4 and the color sampling ratio is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, there is a problem in that the chroma transform is smaller than 4x4, which are generally not available; In such cases, the chroma transform that is used is one in which it overlaps more than one luma transform unit; In that case, the chroma transform would not have a single luma transform from which to inherit the transform’s properties, thus a default transform in such instances would be obviously desirable; Therefore, the thresholding and size constraints in the instant claim are an obvious way of handling the 4x4 luma block scenario when the chroma channels are downsampled in the 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 format).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin, Chen, and Hannuksela (US 2017/0085917 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Seregin, Chen, Rosewarne, and Hannuksela teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information regarding the inverse orthogonal transform includes a transform skip flag indicating whether an inverse orthogonal transform process is to be skipped (Examiner notes transform skip flags are prior art; Hannuksela, ¶ 0365: teaches a transform skip syntax element is a normal part of information for residual coding; Seregin, ¶ 0080: teaches the coding mode parameters that can be inherited from luma blocks includes primary and second transform information).
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 Seregin and Chen, with those of Hannuksela, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because Hannuksela explains IBC and inter prediction are very similar, and because such a 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 Seregin, Chen, and Hannuksela used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seregin, Chen, and Hannuksela teaches or suggests the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a value of the transform skip flag of chrominance is set to a value of the transform skip flag of luminance (Seregin, ¶¶ 0071 and 0072: explain that luma and chroma blocks are typically coded using the same information such that coding mode decisions for the luma blocks (partitioning, transforms, etc.) are used to derive the coding parameters for the chroma blocks; Seregin, ¶ 0073: explicitly lists coding mode being a parameter for a chroma block that can be derived from a corresponding luma block; see also Seregin, ¶ 0075: explaining a flag can be used to indicate the chroma parameters are derived from the luma parameters).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanizawa (US 2014/0056357 A1) explains DCT or DST are orthogonal transforms (¶ 0053).
Lu (US 2012/0230394 A1) teaches the chroma transform can be derived from the luma transform or independently (¶¶ 0065 and 0070, respectively) and explains the decoder performs an inverse transform according to type of transform signaled from the encoder (¶ 0044).
Andersson (US 2020/0036990 A1) teaches the coded bit flag (cbf) indicates whether there are residuals present and further teaches transform can be skipped when the cbf is 0 (¶ 0048).
Rosewarne (US 2015/0249828 A1) teaches the coded block flag signals whether there are non-zero coefficients in the transform unit for a color channel, which further indicates whether a transform is performed (¶ 0084). Given these teachings of the prior art, it is obvious to conclude it would not make sense to inherit transform information from luminance when there is no transform to be performed, i.e. no coefficient values to transform.
Zhao (US 2016/0219290 A1) teaches IBC mode may indicate a certain subset of available transforms to use (e.g. ¶ 0195).
Saxena (US 2015/0016516 A1) teaches choosing a transform mode based on IBC mode (e.g. ¶ 0002). It also teaches choosing transform type, e.g. DCT or DST, based on direction of IBC prediction and teaches either DCT or DST may be selected for either vertical or horizontal prediction directions (¶ 0129). It also teaches “derived mode,” which means chroma components use the same parameters as derived from the corresponding luma component (¶ 0111).
Kao (US 2017/0280163 A1) teaches using the prediction block’s transform parameters when determining the transform parameters for a current IBC-predicted block; Examiner notes that this would mean where the prediction block utilizes an inheritance rule between luma and chroma, the current IBC-predicted block would likewise use the same rule (¶ 0058).
Lee (US 2018/0124420 A1) teaches determining between DCT, DST, and KLT on the basis of intra prediction mode (¶ 0070).
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