DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s amendment filed on July 4th 2026, in which claims 32, 41 and 50 were amended, has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 32-36, 39-45, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 20200322623) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0345692).
Regarding claim 32, Chiang discloses a video decoding device (See Chiang Abstract) comprising a processor (See Chiang [0150]) configured to determine the transform index value associated with a video block (See Chiang [0009], [0011]), wherein the transform index value indicates a position of a transform (See Chiang [0102] “ transform is decided and all other transforms are also mapped into an ordered list”), on an ordered transform list , to be used for the video block (See Chaing [0102]), determine respective costs associated with applying a plurality a plurality of transforms of the video block (See Chiang [0103]), order the plurality of transforms according to the determined cost (See Chiang [0101]-[0102]), wherein the ordered transform list is obtained as a result of the ordering (See Chiang [0102]), select the transform to be used for the video block based on the ordered transform list and the transform index value (See Chiang [0101] and [0107]), and decode the video block based at least on the selected transform (See Chiang [0011] and [0149]).
It is noted that Chiang is silent about wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms.
However, Li teaches a video decoding device wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms (See Li [0019], [0020] and [0027]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chiang to incorporate Li’s teachings wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms. The motivation for performing such a modification in Chiang is to make the distortion between original and reconstructed signals small enough so that the reconstructed signal is useful for the intended application.
As per claims 33 and 42, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the plurality of transforms includes two or more multi-transform selection transforms (See Chaing [0143], [0145]).
As per claims 34 and 43, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the plurality of transforms includes a discrete cosine transform (See Chiang [0053] and [0158]).
As per claims 35 and 44, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the plurality of transforms includes two or more low-frequency non-separable transforms (See Chiang [0054]).
As per claims 36 and 45, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the respective costs associated with the plurality of transforms to the video block are determined based on the video block and one or more rows or columns or reconstructed samples that neighbor the video block (See Chiang [0066] and [0108]).
As per claims 39 and 48, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the one or more rows or columns of reconstructed samples comprise a row of reconstructed samples above the video block and a column of the reconstructed samples to the left of the video block (See Chiang [0010], [0066]).
As per claims 40 and 49, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses wherein the transform index value is determined based on a code included in a video bitstream, and wherein the values of the code is dependent on the number of transforms on the ordered transform list (See Chiang [0138] and [0163]).
As per claim 41, Chian discloses a video decoding method (See Chiang Abstract, and [0120]) comprising determining a transform index value associated with a video block (See Chiang [0009], [0011]), wherein the transform index value indicates a position of a transform (See Chiang [0102] “ transform is decided and all other transforms are also mapped into an ordered list”), on an ordered transform list , to be used for the video block (See Chaing [0102]), determining respective costs associated with applying a plurality of transforms to the video block (See Chiang [0103], ordering the plurality of transforms according to the determined costs See Chiang [0101]-[0102]), wherein the ordered transform list is obtained as a result of the ordering (See Chiang [0102]), selecting the transform to be used for the video block based on the ordered transform list and the transform index value (See Chiang [0101] and [0107]), and decoding the video block based at least on the selected transform (See Chiang [0011] and [0149]).
It is noted that Chiang is silent about wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms.
However, Li teaches a video decoding device wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms (See Li [0019], [0020] and [0027]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chiang to incorporate Li’s teachings wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms. The motivation for performing such a modification in Chiang is to make the distortion between original and reconstructed signals small enough so that the reconstructed signal is useful for the intended application.
4. Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2025/0193451) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0345692).
As per claim 50, Chiang discloses a video encoding comprising a processor configured to determine respective costs associated with applying a plurality of transforms to a video block (See Chiang’s Abstract, [0010] “Some embodiments of the disclosure provide a video coder that signals transform coding based on boundary matching costs of various transform parameters”), order the plurality of transforms according to the determined costs (See Chiang [0013]), wherein an ordered transform list is obtained as a result of the ordering (See Chiang [0065] “after a predicted secondary transform is decided and all other secondary transforms are also mapped to an ordered list, the encoder compares the target secondary transform to be signaled with the predicted secondary transform.”, select a transform for the video block (See Chiang Fig. 8, [0088]]), determine a transform index value associated with the selected transform (See Chiang [0068], wherein the transform index value indicates a position of the selected transform on the ordered transform list (See Chiang [0073] where the boundary is a location), encode the video block based at least on the selected transform (See Chiang’s Abstract, [0010]), and encode an indication of the transform index value (See Chiang [0065] and [0073]).
It is noted that Chiang is silent about wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms.
However, Li teaches a video decoding device wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms (See Li [0019], [0020] and [0027]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Chiang to incorporate Li’s teachings wherein the respective costs are determined based on reconstructed samples values generated using the plurality of transforms. The motivation for performing such a modification in Chiang is to make the distortion between original and reconstructed signals small enough so that the reconstructed signal is useful for the intended application.
As per claim 51, the combination of Chiang and Li further discloses determining the respective costs associated with the plurality of the transforms comprises determining a first set of reconstructed sample values applying the transform block (See Chiang [0012], [0074]-[0075]), calculating a first cost associated with the first transform based on reconstruction samples (See Chiang [0013], [0122]), determining a second set of reconstructed samples by applying a second transform to the video block (See Chiang [0012], [0171]), and calculating a second cost associated with the second transform based on the second reconstruction sample values (See Chiang [0013], [0064]-[0066]).
NOTE: The calculated cost is disclosed in [0013] based on the number of transform types.
5. Claims 37-38, 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 20200322623) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0345692) as applied to claims 36 and 45 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2025/0193451).
Regarding claims 37 and 46, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 36 and 45.
It is noted that the combination of Chiang ‘623 and Li is silent about determining the respective costs associated with the plurality of the transforms comprises determining a first set of reconstructed sample values applying the transform block, calculating a first cost associated with the first transform based on reconstruction samples, determining a second set of reconstructed samples by applying a second transform to the video block, and calculating a second cost associated with the second transform based on the second reconstruction sample values.
However, Chiang ‘451 teaches determining the respective costs associated with the plurality of the transforms comprises determining a first set of reconstructed sample values applying the transform block (See Chiang [0012], [0074]-[0075]), calculating a first cost associated with the first transform based on reconstruction samples (See Chiang [0013], [0122]), determining a second set of reconstructed samples by applying a second transform to the video block (See Chiang [0012], [0171]), and calculating a second cost associated with the second transform based on the second reconstruction sample values (See Chiang [0064]-[0066]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Chiang ‘623 and Li to incorporate Chiang’s ‘451 teachings to determine the respective costs associated with the plurality of the transforms comprises determining a first set of reconstructed sample values applying the transform block, calculate a first cost associated with the first transform based on reconstruction samples, determine a second set of reconstructed samples by applying a second transform to the video block, and calculate a second cost associated with the second transform based on the second reconstruction sample values. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Chiang ‘623 and Li is to be able to assign codewords to different transforms types based on the computed cost as taught by Chiang ‘451 (See Chiang’ 451 [0013]).
As per claims 38 and 47, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claims 37 and 46. In addition, the combination of Chiang ‘623, Li and Chiang ‘451 further teaches determining the first set of reconstructed samples values for the video block based on a prediction block associated with the video block and a first set of residual sample values obtained from applying the first transform to the video block, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the second set of reconstructed sample values for the video block based on the prediction block associated with the video block and a second set of residuals sample values obtained from applying the second transform (See Chiang ‘451 paragraphs [0068], [0082], [0122], [0144]).
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 GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights