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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1 – 13 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Siekmann et al (US 2021/0084301, hereafter Siekmann).
As per claim 1, Siekmann discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks corresponding to a plurality of pictures, the plurality of blocks including a first block (¶ 63);
maintaining an ordered transform list for the plurality of blocks, the ordered transform list corresponding to most probable transform options (¶ 229) and comprising at least one of: transform type information and transform set information (¶ 233);
determining, for the first block, an index value for the ordered transform list (¶ 231); and
decoding the first block by applying a transform to the first block using information from the transform list at the index value (¶ 231 - 233).
As per claim 2, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein maintaining the ordered transform list comprises populating the ordered transform list based on coded information for previously-decoded blocks (¶ 233, 245, and 246; ¶ 233: The transform candidate list for a residual block is constructed by utilizing already decoded syntax elements).
As per claim 3, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, when the first block has an intra prediction mode, ordering the ordered transform list in accordance with first coded information (¶ 425).
As per claim 4, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the coded information comprises the intra prediction mode, and wherein probabilities for respective transform options are fixed for the intra prediction mode (¶ 425).
As per claim 5, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 3, wherein probabilities for respective transform options are updated based on second coded information (¶ 231 – 233 and 425).
As per claim 6, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the intra prediction mode corresponds to a nominal mode of the first block (¶ 425).
As per claim 7, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, when the first block has an inter prediction mode, ordering the ordered transform list in accordance with first coded information (¶ 283).
As per claim 8, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the index value is parsed from the video bitstream (¶ 231).
As per claim 9, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing the index value from the video bitstream; constructing the ordered transform list based on coded information; mapping the index value to a transform option in the ordered transform list (¶ 231 and 280).
As per claim 10, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising mapping the index value to a transform option in the ordered transform list using a lookup table (¶ 280).
As per claim 11, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ordered transform list includes only a subset of available transform options (¶ 243).
As per claim 12, the method of claim 11, further comprising reordering the subset of available transform options within the ordered transform list.
As per claim 13, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the index value is obtained from the video bitstream (¶ 231).
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17.
As per claim 18, Siekmann discloses the computing system of claim 17, wherein the one or more sets of instructions further comprise instructions for constructing the ordered transform list based on coded information (¶ 231 - 235).
As per claim 19, Siekmann discloses the computing system of claim 17, wherein maintaining an ordered transform list comprises reordering the ordered transform list according to a prediction mode of the first block (¶ 425).
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 14 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siekmann in view of Choi et al (US 2024/0414374, hereafter Choi).
As per claim 14, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 13.
However, Siekmann does not explicitly teach wherein the index value is context coded in the video bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches wherein the index value is context coded in the video bitstream (¶ 221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Siekmann in view of Choi. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 15, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 13.
However, Siekmann does not explicitly teach wherein the index value is bypass coded in the video bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches wherein the index value is bypass coded in the video bitstream (¶ 221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Siekmann in view of Choi. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 16, Siekmann discloses the method of claim 13.
However, Siekmann does not explicitly teach wherein the index value is coded with a binary codeword in the video bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches wherein the index value is coded with a binary codeword in the video bitstream (¶ 221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Siekmann in view of Choi. The advantage is improving video coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 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 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights