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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 38-57. Claims 38, 42, 43, 48, 50, 51, and 55 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 38-57 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nalci et al. fails to teach “based at least on the depth information, whether to apply multiple transform selection (MTS) to the video block”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 144, Nalci et al. teaches “a video coder (e.g., a video encoder such as video encoder 200 or a video decoder such as video decoder 300) may perform context modeling/coding of the LFNST indices at the transform unit (TU) level. In WC Draft 5, the LFNST signaling is performed at the coding unit (CU) level. The '828 application and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/830,125, filed Apr. 5, 2019 (hereinafter, the “'125 application”) describe specific methods where signaling of the LFNST indices is done at the transform unit (TU) level. The approach advanced by the '828 application and the '125 application enables signaling of both MTS and LFNST related indices/flags at the same level (i.e., TV level). This disclosure advances techniques to cover context-based signaling of the LFNST indices/flags.” In Paragraph 149, Nalci et al. teaches “As a fourth example signaling technique, a video coder may context code LFNST index/flag based on the TV depth. For example, if the TV depth is less than a threshold depth (e.g. tu.depth<threshold_depth), the video coder may context code the LFNST index.” In Paragraph 157, Nalci et al. teaches “In accordance with one or more techniques of this disclosure, a video coder (e.g., a video encoder such as video encoder 200 or a video decoder such as video decoder 300) may perform context modeling/coding for unified LFNST index/flag with MTS index/flag signaling. In VVC Draft 5, the LFNST signaling is performed at the coding unit (CU) level, The '828 application proposes an alternative design to combine the signaling of the LFNST index/flag with the existing transform signaling (e.g. MTS index/flag signaling) such that signaling of the MTS and LFNST can be unified/harmonized. In this case, context modeling and coding of the LFNST indices and MTS indices can also he unified and harmonized to use the same contexts and context modeling.” In Paragraph 167, Nalci et al. explicitly teaches that MTS may or may not be applied, “Entropy decoding unit 302 may determine the context based on factors in addition to, or in place of the color component. Example factors include multiple transform selection (MTS) index, block size, number of non-zero transform coefficients, partition depth of the unit, and any other factor.” This clearly and unambiguously teaches that the context may be based on both the depth and the MTS index. This means that the contexts where MTS is applied are based on depth information.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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.
Claim(s) 38-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nalci et al. (US 20200404276 A1).
Regarding Claim 38, Nalci et al. teaches a video encoding device, comprising: a processor (Paragraphs 10-11) configured to:
obtain depth information associated with a video block (Paragraph 7);
determine, based at least on the depth information, whether to apply multiple transform selection (MTS) to the video block (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 146-157; Paragraphs 167-168; context may rely on both MTS and depth info); and
encode the video block based at least on the determination of whether to apply MTS to the video block (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 146-150; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 39, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 38, wherein the determination whether to apply MTS to the video block is further based on obtained motion information associated with the video block, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based at least on the depth information, a homogeneity value associated with the video block, wherein the determination of whether to apply MTS to the video block is further based on the homogeneity value (Paragraph 7; Paragraphs 57-58; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 90; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 40, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 39, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the homogeneity value is greater than a threshold, wherein the determination whether to apply MTS to the video block is further based on the determination whether the homogeneity value is greater than the threshold (Paragraph 7; Paragraphs 57-58; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 90; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 149-156; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 41, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 38, wherein the depth information includes a depth map that indicates respective depth values associated with one or more samples of the video block, wherein the determination whether to apply MTS to the video block is further based on the depth map (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 129; Paragraph 137; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 42, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 38, wherein the processor is further configured to:obtain motion information associated with the video block, wherein the motion information includes a motion map that indicates one or more motions associated with the video block; and determine, based on at least one of the depth information or the motion information, whether to apply transform skip (TrSkip) to the video block, wherein the video block is encoded further based on the determination of whether to apply TrSkip to the video block (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 66; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 152; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 43, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 42 (interpreted to be correctly as depending on claim 42 since claim 5 is cancelled), wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on at least one of the depth information or the motion information, whether to apply subblock transform (SBT) to the video block, wherein the video block is encoded further based on the determination of whether to apply SBT to the video block (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 49; Paragraph 68; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 150-153; Paragraphs 167-168).
Regarding Claim 44, Nalci et al. teaches the video encoding device of claim 43, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an SBT split line associated with the video block based on the motion information, wherein the SBT split line divides the video block into a first part having a first size and a second part having a second size (Paragraph 7; Paragraph 86-87; Paragraph 95; Paragraph 118; Paragraphs 131-132; Paragraphs 150-153; Paragraphs 167-168).
The video decoding device of claims 45-50 is drawn to the decoding device associated with the encoding device of claims 38-44 and has similar limitations to those rejected above merely performed in the inverse. These claims are rejected for the same reasons as above. Nalci et al. further teaches a video decoding device corresponding to a video encoding device (Paragraph 6; Paragraph 32).
Method claims 51-57 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 38-44 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
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 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights