DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 1-2, 4, 9-10, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosewarne (US 2022/0368904) in view of Peringassery Krishnan et al. (US 2023/0103505, hereinafter Peringassery).
Regarding claim 1, Rosewarne discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (see 134 in fig. 4), the image decoding method comprising: obtaining prediction information of a current block (see 458 in fig. 4); determining a prediction mode of the current block based on the prediction information (see 1210 in fig. 12); selecting a transform kernel (see 1270 in fig. 12) for generating a residual block of the current block based on the prediction mode being a predetermined mode (see 1210 and 1270 in fig. 12); and generating the residual block of the current block by performing non-separable primary transform on the current block based on the selected transform kernel (see 1270-1290 in fig. 12; e.g. see ¶ [0138]).
Although Rosewarne discloses wherein in response to the prediction mode being a certain mode (see 1210 in fig. 12), a transform kernel set or transform kernel applied to the non-separable primary transform is selected based on information about the certain mode (see 1270 in fig. 12), it is noted that Rosewarne does not disclose wherein the certain mode is a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP).
However, Peringassery discloses a coding system of applying non-separate transform on CIIP prediction mode (see 2310-2330 in fig. 23).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Cao teachings of types of intra mode into Peringassery CIIP non-separable transform for the benefit of accommodating other industries type of intra and inter prediction.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Rosewarne further discloses wherein the predetermined mode is one of
Regarding claim 4, Rosewarne further discloses comprising obtaining information specifying whether to apply the non-separable primary transform based on the prediction mode of the current block being the predetermined mode (e.g. see ¶ [0059]), wherein whether to apply the non-separable primary transform to the current block is determined based on the obtained information (e.g. see ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Rosewarne further discloses wherein the selecting the transform kernel for the current block comprises obtaining transform kernel selection information of the current block (see 1120-1140 in fig. 11), and wherein the transform kernel selection information is information for selecting one transform kernel from one or more non-separable transform kernels and one or more separable transform kernels (see 436 and 444 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Rosewarne further discloses wherein whether to apply the non-separable primary transform to the current block is determined based further on residual characteristics of the current block or neighboring block (e.g. see ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim(s) recite an encoder (see 114 in fig. 3; see fig. 11) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0009]) generated by the image encoding method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim(s) recite a method of transmitting (see 116 in fig. 1) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
(Note: Claim 20 recites a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method. The claim then recites steps for obtaining the bitstream. These steps do not add any further structure or functional limitation to the “transmitting the bitstream”. Hence, these steps do not add patentable weight to the claim. It is recommended to either cancel the claim or add any transmission related limitation in the body to consider the body of the claim).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosewarne and Peringassery in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2021/0385492).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Rosewarne does not disclose a non-separate transform wherein whether to apply the non-separable primary transform is determined based further on a number of pixels included in the current block.
However, Hashimoto discloses a non-separate transform wherein whether to apply the non-separable primary transform is determined based further on a number of pixels included in the current block (e.g. see ¶ [0146]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hashimoto teachings of non-separable transform condition into Rosewarne non-separable transform for the benefit of reducing processing time when non-separable transform does not improve compression rate.
Claims 6-7, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosewarne and Peringassery in view of Cao et al. (US 2023/0107237).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17, Rosewarne does not disclose wherein the information about the CIIP mode comprises at least one of a CIIP weight or a CIIP intra mode, wherein the CIIP intra mode is at least one of a planar mode, a CIIP_PDPC mode, a CIIP_DIMD mode or a CIIP_TIMD mode.
However, Cao discloses a non-separate transform wherein the information about the CIIP mode comprises at least one of at least one of a planar mode (e.g. see ¶ [0057]),
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Cao teachings of types of intra mode into Rosewarne intra non-separable transform for the benefit of accommodating other industries type of intra prediction.
Regarding claim 11 Rosewarne does not disclose wherein the residual characteristics are determined based on a position of a last significant coefficient in the residual block of the current block or the number of significant coefficients in the residual block of the current block.
However, Cao discloses a non-separate transform wherein the residual characteristics are determined based on a position of a last significant coefficient in the residual block of the current block or the number of significant coefficients in the residual block of the current block. (e.g. see Cao “planar mode” in ¶ [0057]).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Cao teachings of types of intra mode into Rosewarne intra non-separable transform for the benefit of accommodating other industries type of intra prediction.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosewarne and Peringassery in view of Deng et al. (US 2025/0392756).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the references do not disclose wherein in response to the prediction mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), a transform kernel set or transform kernel applied for the non-separable primary transform is selected based on information about the GPM, and wherein the information about the GPM mode includes at least one of a GPM index, and Angle index or a Distance index.
However, Deng discloses a coding/decoding method wherein in response to the prediction mode being a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) (see fig. 20), a transform kernel set or transform kernel applied for the non-separable primary transform is selected based on information about the GPM (see 3200 in fig. 32; e.g. see ¶ [0530]), and wherein the information about the GPM mode includes at least one of a GPM index, and Angle index (e.g. see ¶ [0278]) or a Distance index.
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Deng teachings of GPM into Rosewarne partition for the benefit of improving coding efficiency and performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Note Claim 20 is not amended or argued to overcome the transmitting of the bitstream rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Koo et al. (US 2020/0374554), discloses intra non-separable transform kernels and index.
2. Lim et al. (US 2023/0007290), discloses intra non-separable transform with vertical and horizontal transform.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights