DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 32-39 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The method” in the claims should be changed to “The apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1 and 32-39 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘351 claims list all the features recited in claims 1 and 32-39 of the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1, 32, 34, 36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 2016/0219290) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Zhao”.
As per claim 1, Zhao discloses an apparatus for decoding a picture from a data stream (FIG. 6), wherein the apparatus comprises a processor (paragraph 0068) configured to:
for a block of the picture, decode an intra-coding mode signal from the data stream (paragraph 0238, video decoder 30 may receive from a bitstream information indicating a prediction mode (e.g., whether a video block is intra-predicted or inter-predicted); see also paragraphs 0217-0218);
select a coding mode from a set of coding modes based on the intra-coding mode signal (paragraph 0226, Intra-prediction processing unit 166 may determine the intra prediction mode for the PU based on one or more syntax elements decoded from the bitstream; see also paragraphs 0228-0229 and 0232; paragraph 0238, video decoder 30 may receive from a bitstream information indicating a prediction mode (e.g., whether a video block is intra-predicted or inter-predicted)…Prediction processing unit 152 may determine the predictive block based on the prediction mode…The prediction mode is one of an inter-prediction mode or an intra-prediction mode);
identify a context based on the coding mode (paragraph 0169, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may use one set of context models for CABAC-encoding or CABAC-decoding…; paragraph 0177, the context model is selected based on the bin index. In another example, furthermore, the intra prediction mode or TU size or TU depth is also considered when selecting the context models);
decode transform coefficient levels (paragraph 0238, video decoder 30 may…receive from the bitstream information indicating coefficients of the current coefficient block; see input of inverse quantization unit 154 in FIG. 6; see also paragraph 0220, inverse quantization unit 154 may inverse quantize, i.e., de-quantize, coefficient blocks associated with the TU);
decode a transform class signal (paragraph 0032, The video decoder may then determine which transform(s) to use from the selected transform subset(s) based possibly on one or more transform subset indices, for respective ones of the selected transform subset(s), signaled in the bitstream; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261), wherein the transform coefficient levels and the transform class signal both correspond to a portion of the block (e.g., TU), and wherein the transform class signal is decoded based on context-based entropy decoding using the identified context (as shown in the table of paragraph 0256, it is based on the intra mode value; in addition, paragraph 0169 teaches video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may use one set of context models for CABAC-encoding or CABAC-decoding the one-bit flag; paragraph 0177 teaches video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may binarize the indicators (e.g., indices into the transform subsets) using, for example, fixed-length code, truncated unary code or exponential Golomb code. Video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may entropy code (e.g., encode or decode, respectively) indicators using CABC with contexts, and for each bin, one context is applied. In one example, the context model is selected based on the bin index. In another example, furthermore, the intra prediction mode or TU size or TU depth is also considered when selecting the context models; see also paragraph 0212);
select, for the portion of the block, at least one transform from a set of transforms based on the transform class signal for transforming the transform coefficient levels (paragraph 0245, If the one-bit flag is 0, only the default DCT-II can applied for all the TUs included in the current CU; otherwise, a two-bit TU-level indicator may be further signaled for each TU, and the first bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the horizontal transform, and the second bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the vertical transform; paragraphs 0255-0256, the value of LeftTransSubsetIdx and RigthTransSubsetIdx is derived; see also paragraph 0032, The video decoder may then determine which transform(s) to use from the selected transform subset(s) based possibly on one or more transform subset indices, for respective ones of the selected transform subset(s), signaled in the bitstream; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261); and
reconstruct the block using transformed transform coefficient levels and the selected coding mode (see FIG. 2, output of reconstruction unit 158; paragraph 0082, Video decoder 30 may reconstruct the pictures of the video data based at least in part on the syntax elements decoded from the bitstream; paragraph 0300, reconstruction unit 158 may add the current transform block (which is a residual between of the video block and the predictive block) to the predictive block to reconstruct the video block).
As per claim 32, Zhao discloses wherein the transform class signal is: a variable length code; or a fixed length code (paragraphs 0177 and 0212).
As per claim 34, Zhao discloses wherein selecting the at least one transform comprises: mapping a domain of values of the transform class signal to each transform of the set of transforms; and selecting the at least one transform based on the mapping (signaling using flag values as taught in paragraphs 0157, 0164, and 0179; paragraph 0245, If the one-bit flag is 0, only the default DCT-II can applied for all the TUs included in the current CU; otherwise, a two-bit TU-level indicator may be further signaled for each TU, and the first bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the horizontal transform, and the second bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the vertical transform; paragraphs 0255-0256, the value of LeftTransSubsetIdx and RigthTransSubsetIdx is derived; see also paragraph 0032, The video decoder may then determine which transform(s) to use from the selected transform subset(s) based possibly on one or more transform subset indices, for respective ones of the selected transform subset(s), signaled in the bitstream; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261).
As per claim 36, Zhao discloses wherein the set of transforms comprise at least one of: Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT)-II;DCT -IV; Discrete Sine Transform (DST)-IV; and an identity transformation (paragraphs 0150-0151).
As per claim 38, Zhao discloses wherein selecting the at least one transform associated with the portion of the block comprises: selecting the at least one transform from a set of transforms based on an intra-coding mode of the portion of the block (paragraphs 0228 and 0232; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261).
As per claim 39, Zhao discloses wherein selecting the at least one transform from the set of transforms comprises: selecting every transform from the set of transforms (paragraph 0138; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claims 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2016/0219290) in view of Kamisli et al. (US 2011/0286525) hereinafter “Kamisli”.
As per claim 33, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1; however, Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the transform class signal comprises four bins.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamisli discloses wherein the transform class signal comprises four bins (paragraph 0125, a 4-bit parameter can indicate which of 16 transform patterns was used).
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 Zhao, with those of Kamisli, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references describe selection of one or more transform from a set of transforms, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
12. Claims 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2016/0219290) in view of SOLE et al. (US 2018/0091817) hereinafter “SOLE”.
As per claim 35, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the at least one transform comprises:
determining that a prefix portion of the transform class signal indicates a first state or a second state (paragraph 0164, one-bit flag, interpreted as a prefix portion, is presented first before transform subset indices to identify whether TUs within the CTU or within each CU of the CTU use the same default transform, interpreted as a first state, or do not use the same default transform, interpreted as a second state);
in response to the prefix portion indicating the first state (paragraph 0165, video decoder 30 may determine at each hierarchical level whether all TUs within a particular hierarchical level use a default transform. For example, if the flag at the CTU level indicates that all TUs of the CTU are to use the same default transform), selecting, for the portion of the block, the at least one transform from the set of transforms… (paragraph 0156, video encoder 20 may determine that the left and right transforms for each TU of a CU should be a same default transform (e.g., DCT-II as one example, but other transform types are possible as well). Also, there may be a default transform for the left transform and a default transform for the right transform; see also paragraph 0241) without decoding a suffix portion of the transform class signal (paragraph 0157, video encoder 20 may not signal indices into transform subsets, which reduces the amount of information that needs to be signaled, because video decoder 30 may determine that the default transform is to be used for each TU of the CU based on the received information, said indices are interpreted as suffix portions. It is clear that in the case of the default transform is used for all the TUs, an indication of the selected transform for each TU is not going to be signaled in the bitstream and decoded); and
in response to the prefix portion indicating the second state (paragraph 0165, If the flag at the CTU level indicates that not all TUs of the CTU are to use the same default transform), decoding the suffix portion from the data stream (paragraph 0158, If the flag is of a second value (e.g., a digital low), then at least one TU of the CU was applied with a transform other than the default transform. In the case where at least one TU of the CU was applied with a different transform, video encoder 20 may select transform subsets and signal indices, interpreted as suffix portion, in the transform subsets; paragraph 0245, If the one-bit flag is 0, only the default DCT-II can applied for all the TUs included in the current CU; otherwise, a two-bit TU-level indicator, interpreted as suffix portion, may be further signaled for each TU, and the first bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the horizontal transform, and the second bit specifies which transform type from the given transform set is applied as the vertical transform; paragraphs 0255-0256, the value of LeftTransSubsetIdx and RigthTransSubsetIdx is derived) and selecting, for the portion of the block, the at least one transform from the set of transforms identified by the suffix portion (paragraph 0032, The video decoder may then determine which transform(s) to use from the selected transform subset(s) based possibly on one or more transform subset indices, for respective ones of the selected transform subset(s), signaled in the bitstream; see also tables in paragraphs 0256-0261), the suffix portion corresponding to a fixed- length binarization (paragraph 0177, Video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may binarize the indicators (e.g., indices into the transform subsets) using, for example, fixed-length code).
However, Zhao does not explicitly disclose selecting, for the portion of the block, the at least one transform from the set of transforms based on a previous transform selection of a neighboring portion;
In the same field of endeavor, SOLE discloses selecting, for the portion of the block, the at least one transform from the set of transforms based on a previous transform selection of a neighboring portion (paragraph 0098, the transform choice can be dependent on the transform selections of the neighboring reconstructed blocks, which are available at both the encoder and decoder);
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 Zhao, with those of SOLE, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references describe selection of one or more transform from a set of transforms, 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 Zhao and SOLE used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 37, SOLE discloses wherein selecting the at least one transform associated with the portion of the block comprises: predicting the at least one transform based on a previously selected transform for a segment that neighbors the portion of the block (paragraph 0098).
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 10306229, US 20210235077, US 20210160487)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights