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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-16. Claims 3, 4 , and 6-9 have been cancelled, and new claim 17 has been added. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 10-16 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5, and 10-17 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. These claims recite a “first quantization matrix” and “second quantization matrix”. There is no reference or disclosure of first or second quantization matrices in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 12-17 recite the broad recitation “a quantization matrix”, and the claims also recite “a first quantization matrix” and “a second quantization matrix” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In this case it is unclear whether the “quantization matrix” is a separate third quantization matrix, or one of the first and second quantization matrices.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 10-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: it is unclear whether the “quantization matrix” is a separate third quantization matrix, or one of the first and second quantization matrices.
Appropriate correction is required
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 20210289198 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 20220321885 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liao et al. teaches an image encoding apparatus (Paragraphs 305-308) comprising:
at least one processor configured to function as (Paragraph 293; Paragraphs 865-869):
(1) a prediction unit configured to (a) generate a prediction image in which (i) an intra-prediction image obtained by intra-prediction is applied to a first region in a target block in an image and (ii) an inter-prediction image obtained by inter-prediction is applied to a second region different from the first region in the block, and (b) derive prediction errors corresponding to a difference between the target block and the prediction image (Paragraph 151; Paragraphs 161-171);
(2) a transformation unit configured to derive transform coefficients by frequency-transforming the prediction errors (Paragraphs 343-351);
(3) a quantization unit configured to derive quantized coefficients by quantizing, using a quantization matrix, the transform coefficients (Paragraphs 352-359); and
(4) an encoding unit configured to encode the quantized coefficients (Paragraphs 305-308; Paragraph 361).
However, Liao et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the quantization matrix is obtained based on both (1) a first quantization matrix for an intra-prediction and (2) a second quantization matrix for an inter-prediction.
Lim et al., however, teaches that the quantization matrix is obtained based on both (1) a first quantization matrix for an intra-prediction and (2) a second quantization matrix for an inter-prediction (Paragraphs 16-40; Paragraph 18 for example teaches “According to an embodiment, the quantization matrix used in the block having the maximum height and width of 2 may include only a quantization matrix used in a block for a Cr component while performing inter prediction or intra block copy prediction and a quantization matrix used for a block for a Cb component while performing inter prediction or intra block copy prediction.”, Paragraph 33 for example teaches “According to an embodiment, the quantization matrix set may include a quantization matrix used in an intra-predicted block, a quantization matrix used in an inter-predicted block and a quantization matrix used in an intra-block-copy-predicted block, and the quantization matrix used in the inter-predicted block and the quantization matrix used in the intra-block-copy-predicted block may be equal to each other.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the image encoding apparatus of Liao et al. to include a quantization matrix based both intra and inter quantization matrices in order to improve objective and subjective image quality of an image (See Lim et al. Paragraph 42).
Regarding Claim 2, Liao et al. and Lim et al. teach the image encoding apparatus according to claim 1, Liao et al. further teaches wherein the encoding unit encodes the quantization matrix (Paragraphs 352-359).
Regarding Claim 5, Liao et al. and Lim et al. teach the image encoding apparatus according to claim 4, however Liao et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the quantization matrix is obtained based on (1) the first quantization matrix for an intra-prediction (2) the second quantization matrix for an inter-prediction, (3) a size of the first region, and (4) a size of the second region.
Lim et al., however, teaches wherein the quantization matrix is obtained based on (1) the first quantization matrix for an intra-prediction (2) the second quantization matrix for an inter-prediction, (3) a size of the first region, and (4) a size of the second region (Paragraphs 16-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the image encoding apparatus of Liao et al. to include a quantization matrix based both intra and inter quantization matrices in order to improve objective and subjective image quality of an image (See Lim et al. Paragraph 42).
Regarding Claim 10, Liao et al. and Lim et al. teach the image encoding apparatus according to claim 1, Liao et al. further teaches wherein the prediction unit generates the prediction image using (1) prediction pixels located at positions corresponding to the first region among prediction pixels included in the intra-prediction image generated using intra-prediction for the target block, and (2) prediction pixels located at positions corresponding to the second region among prediction pixels included in the inter-prediction image generated using inter-prediction for the target block (Paragraph 151; Paragraphs 161-171; Paragraph 345; Paragraphs 401-411).
Regarding Claim 11, Liao et al. and Lim et al. teach the image encoding apparatus according to claim 1, Liao et al. further teaches wherein the first region is one of two regions generated by dividing the target block by a line segment, and wherein the second region is the other of the two regions (Paragraph 151; Paragraphs 161-171; Paragraph 320-324; Paragraph 749).
Claims 12 and 17 are drawn to the decoding apparatus corresponding to the encoding apparatus of claims 1 and 5, these claim have substantially similar limitations merely performed in the inverse, and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Liao et al. further teaches an image decoding apparatus corresponding to the encoding apparatus (Paragraphs 285; Paragraph 583).
Method claims 13 and 14 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1 and 12 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15 and 16 are drawn to similar limitations as those rejected in claims 1, 12, 13 and 14, and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Liao et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program configured to cause a computer to function (Paragraph 293; Paragraphs 865-869).
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 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