DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 09/23/2024. Claims 1-3 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 06/26/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,903 B2, in view of Claims 1-2 of US 11,082,694 B2 (which includes the known feature of input/output length(s) and their obvious reciprocal equivalents), whereby the scope of the features of the claims are essentially the same and directed to the same invention. Therefore, all of the elements are known, and combining the elements according to known techniques/methods ready for improvement would yield predictable results of increasing precision and efficiency during the encoding/decoding process. Lastly, Claims 1-3 of the instant application are previously known and included in, in different permutations, the corresponding Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,903 B2, and Claims 1-2 of US 11,082,694 B2. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented Claims, albiet in different embodiments.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,352 B2, in view of Chiang et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2018/0302631 A1, hereby Chiang.
Claims 1-3 of the instant invention are substantially similar in scope to Claims 1-2, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,352 B2 (which includes the known feature of input/output length(s) and their obvious reciprocal equivalents), in which the scope of the novel features of the claims are essentially the same and directed to the same invention. Independent Claims 1-3 of the instant invention disclose the additional feature of primary inverse transform and primary transform. Although these are standard features of a decoder/encoder and therefore a minor difference, such features are known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Chiang, Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0029]-[0032], disclosing determining a non-separable secondary transform kernel size based on the height and width of a current block; see also Fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0037]-[0045], visually disclosing applying the non-separable secondary transform to coefficients (Fig. 2, element 250) being related to the input length when NSST is applied, and further disclosing utilization of core transform and inverse core transform (i.e., primary transform and primary inverse transform), which can be applied on both the encoder and decoder sides, respectively; Figs. 6-7 and 9-10, visually disclosing the structural features of an encoder and a decoder (including core/NSST transform and inverse core/NSST transform) that performs the reciprocal functions of the encoder; Fig. 13)).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings to improve coding efficiency (see Chiang, paragraphs [0005]-[0006]; see also Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0029]-[0032]; see also Fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0037]-[0045]; Figs. 6-7 and 9-10; Fig. 13)).
Lastly, Claims 1-3 of the instant application are previously known and included in, in different permutations, the corresponding Claims 1-2, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,352 B2. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented Claims, albiet in different embodiments.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,051 B2, in view of Chiang.
Claims 1-3 of the instant invention are substantially similar in scope to Claims 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,051 B2 (which includes the known feature of input/output length(s) and their obvious reciprocal equivalents), in which the scope of the novel features of the claims are essentially the same and directed to the same invention. Independent Claims 1-3 of the instant invention disclose the additional feature of the size of the non-separable transform matrix is determined as one of four predefined sizes, based on the height and width of the current block. Although specifying a number of predefined sizes is a minor difference, such features are known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Chiang, Figs. 8 and 11, visually disclosing four available predefined sizes on both the encoder and decoder sides; see also Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0029]-[0032], disclosing determining a non-separable secondary transform kernel size based on the height and width of a current block; see also Fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0037]-[0045], visually disclosing applying the non-separable secondary transform to coefficients (Fig. 2, element 250) being related to the input length when NSST is applied, and further disclosing utilization of core transform and inverse core transform, which can be applied on both the encoder and decoder sides, respectively; see also Figs. 6-7 and 9-10, visually disclosing the structural features of an encoder and a decoder (including core/NSST transform and inverse core/NSST transform) that performs the reciprocal functions of the encoder; see also Fig. 13)).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings to improve coding efficiency (see Chiang, paragraphs [0005]-[0006]; see also Figs. 8 and 11).
Lastly, Claims 1-3 of the instant application are previously known and included in, in different permutations, the corresponding Claims 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,051 B2. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented Claims, albiet in different embodiments.
Examiner notes that the broader “method of transmitting” of Claim 3 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “method for encoding” in Claim 9 of corresponding U.S. Patent No. 11,589,051 B2 as an obvious variant.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,082,694 B2, in view of Chiang.
Claims 1-3 of the instant invention are substantially similar in scope to 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,082,694 B2 (which includes the known feature of input/output length(s) and their obvious reciprocal equivalents), in which the scope of the novel features of the claims are essentially the same and directed to the same invention. Independent Claims 1-3 of the instant invention disclose the feature of primary inverse transform and primary transform, and the additional feature of the size of the non-separable transform matrix is determined as one of four predefined sizes, based on the height and width of the current block. Although these are standard features of a decoder/encoder, and specifying a number of predefined sizes is a minor difference, such features are known and used in the conventional prior art of record (see Chiang, Figs. 8 and 11, visually disclosing four available predefined sizes on both the encoder and decoder sides; Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0029]-[0032], disclosing determining a non-separable secondary transform kernel size based on the height and width of a current block; see also Fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0037]-[0045], visually disclosing applying the non-separable secondary transform to coefficients (Fig. 2, element 250) being related to the input length when NSST is applied, and further disclosing utilization of core transform and inverse core transform (i.e., primary transform and primary inverse transform), which can be applied on both the encoder and decoder sides, respectively; Figs. 6-7 and 9-10, visually disclosing the structural features of an encoder and a decoder (including core/NSST transform and inverse core/NSST transform) that performs the reciprocal functions of the encoder; Fig. 13)).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such teachings to improve coding efficiency (see Chiang, Figs. 8 and 11, and paragraphs [0005]-[0006]; see also Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0029]-[0032]; see also Fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0037]-[0045]; Figs. 6-7 and 9-10; Fig. 13).
Lastly, Claims 1-3 of the instant application are previously known and included in, in different permutations, the corresponding Claims 1-2 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,082,694 B2. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented Claims, albiet in different embodiments.
Examiner notes that the broader “method of transmitting” of Claim 3 in the instant application is anticipated by using the “method for encoding” in Claim 9 of corresponding U.S. Patent No. 11,082,694 B2 as an obvious variant.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose non-separable secondary transform for video coding. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Zhao (US 2017/0094313 A1), Figs. 5-6 and 8-9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (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 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482