DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
The double patenting rejection still holds. The co-pending applications are being amended in an analogous manner as compared to this instant application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 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.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/695,638, filed on 03/30/2022.
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, 5-6 and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 of copending Application No. 18/910,566 in view of Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim ‘396) (US 20150334396). The only difference between this instant application and the co-pending application is the size of the first and second quantization matrix. This instant application contains 4x4, whereas copending app. claims 8x8. However, Lim ‘396 does disclose wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 8×8, the size of the second quantization matrix is 8×8. [See Lim ‘396 [0019] Quantization matrix having the same size as a quantization matrix when coding/decoding is being performed. Also, see 0038, 4x4 quantization matrices.] It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by the claims of copending Application No. 18/910,566 to add the teachings of Lim ‘396, in order to improve upon coding efficiency [See Lim ‘396 [0005]].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-12 of copending Application No. 18/910,601. Co-pending App. ‘601 does not explicitly claim wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 4x4, the size of the second quantization matrix is 4x4. However, Lim ‘396 does disclose wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 8×8, the size of the second quantization matrix is 8×8. [See Lim ‘396 [0019] Quantization matrix having the same size as a quantization matrix when coding/decoding is being performed. Also, see 0038, 4x4 quantization matrices.] It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by the claims of copending Application No. 18/910,601 to add the teachings of Lim ‘396, in order to improve upon coding efficiency [See Lim ‘396 [0005]].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18/910,615 in view of Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim ‘396) (US 20150334396). This instant application contains broader claim language than the copending App. ‘601. Additionally, Co-pending App. ‘615 does not explicitly claim wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 4x4, the size of the second quantization matrix is 4x4. However, Lim ‘396 does disclose wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 4x4, the size of the second quantization matrix is 4x4. [See Lim ‘396 [0019] Quantization matrix having the same size as a quantization matrix when coding/decoding is being performed. Also, see 0038, 4x4 quantization matrices.] It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by the claims of copending Application No. 18/910,615 to add the teachings of Lim ‘396, in order to improve upon coding efficiency [See Lim ‘396 [0005]].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim) (US 20220321885) in view of Ray et al. (herein after will be referred to as Ray) (US 20200413092) and in further view of Tanaka (US 20150063447).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses an image encoding apparatus comprising:
a quantization unit configured to quantize transform coefficients in a block in an image, using a first quantization matrix; and [See Lim [0024] Quantizing transform coefficients of a current block of a current picture based on the quantization matrix set. Also, see Fig. 1, quantization unit (140).]
an encoding unit configured to encode the first quantization matrix, [See Lim [Fig. 1] Entropy encoding unit (150).]
wherein (a) in a case where a first mode is used to encode the first quantization matrix, the encoding unit encodes, into a scaling list data syntax structure, information indicating that the first quantization matrix is the same as a second quantization matrix to be referenced, and encodes, into the scaling list data syntax structure, information for specifying the second quantization matrix, [See Lim [1045] Quantization matrix copy mode. Also, see 1047. Also, see 1069-1073, syntax elements for flags are Golomb coded. Also, see 0472-0475, scaling_list_pred_mode flag.]
(b) in a case where a second mode is used to encode the first quantization matrix, the encoding unit encodes, into the scaling list data syntax structure, the information for specifying the second quantization matrix, and encodes, into the scaling list data syntax structure, information for deriving a difference between an element of the first quantization matrix and an element of the second quantization matrix, and [See Lim [1046] Inter-quantization matrix prediction mode. Also, see 1048. Also, see 0016. Also, see 0472-0475, scaling_list_pred_mode flag. Also, see 1069-1073, syntax elements for flags are exp-Golomb coded.]
(c) in a case where a third mode is used to encode the first quantization matrix, the encoding unit encodes a difference between an element and another element within the first quantization matrix, [See Lim [1046] Intra-quantization matrix DPCM mode.]
wherein the second quantization matrix having a size of 2x2 can be applied to chroma blocks, and the second quantization matrix having a size of 2x2 is not applied to luma blocks, [See Lim [0494-0495] Quantization matrix having size of 2x2 is not used for luma, and quantization matrix having size of 2x2 is used for chroma.]
wherein for a block size which is equal to or smaller than 8x8, only quantization matrices of three sizes are encoded as the second quantization matrices, and the second quantization matrix having the size of 2x2 [See Lim [1063-1064] The embodiments are applicable only when the size of the current block is equal to or less than 8x8. Also, see 0015 and/or 0309, Quantization matrix is defined according to a size of a block. Also, see 0619, quantization matrix having a size of 2x2, 4x4 or 8x8. Also, see 0303, size of quantization matrix is derived based on the size of the transform block. For example, a non-square quantization matrix is derived for a non-square transform block (i.e. and a square quantization matrix is derived for square transform blocks).]
wherein in a case where a size of the first quantization matrix to be encoded is 4x4, the size of the second quantization matrix is 4x4. [See Lim [0475] Current quantization matrix is equal to a reference quantization matrix or a default quantization matrix. Also, see 0603, equal quantization matrices. Also, see 0619, quantization matrix having size 4x4.]
Lim does not explicitly disclose
wherein a code amount of information representing that the first mode is used is less than a code amount of information representing that the second mode is used,
wherein the code amount of information representing that the first mode is used is less than a code amount of information representing that the third mode is used,
However, Ray does disclose
wherein a code amount of information representing that the first mode is used is less than a code amount of information representing that the second mode is used, [See Ray [0180] Golomb codes for different prediction mode indexes and comprises 3 modes. Also, see Table 8, different amount of code information for modes 0, 1 & 2, where 0 is the least out of the 3 and 2 is the largest out of the 3.]
wherein the code amount of information representing that the first mode is used is less than a code amount of information representing that the third mode is used, [See Ray [0180] Golomb codes for different prediction mode indexes and comprises 3 modes. Also, see Table 8, different amount of code information for modes 0, 1 & 2, where 0 is the least out of the 3 and 2 is the largest out of the 3.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Lim to add the teachings of Ray, in order to improve upon coding efficiency [See Ray [0005]].
Lim (modified by Ray) do not explicitly disclose
However, Tanaka does disclose
[See Tanaka [0182] Loops for every size and type of quantization matrix, starting at size 0 (i.e. in view of Lim, 2x2 will be encoded first).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Lim (modified by Ray) to add the teachings of Tanaka, in order to improve upon coding efficiency related to quantization matrices [See Tanaka [0009-0010]].
Regarding claim 2, Lim (modified by Ray and Tanaka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein types of components of the blocks include a luma component and two chroma components, and transform coefficients of each component are quantized using the first quantization matrix corresponding to the component. [See Lim [0098] Block includes luma and two chroma components. Also, see Figs. 9-17, quantization matrices for luma/chroma.]
Regarding claim 3, Lim (modified by Ray and Tanaka) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the second quantization matrix is a quantization matrix which has already been encoded or a default quantization matrix all elements of which are 16. [See Lim [Fig. 21] Default matrix having values of 16.]
Regarding claim 5, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights