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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to claims 5-8 and 13-16 has been withdrawn in view of current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues US 2022/0086443 (“Lim”) fails to teach or suggest the limitation “obtaining a single identifier for a quantization matrix, based on a block size identifier, a color component type, and a prediction mode of a block to be decoded in a picture,… and wherein said single identifier is obtained based on sizeId and matrixTypeId, where matrixTypeId indicates said color component type and said prediction mode of said block, and sizeId indicates said block size identifier”. The Examiner disagrees. Figures 29 and 32 of Lim show identifier matrixID which is obtained based on sizeID, prediction mode and color component. It is noted matrixTypeId is data corresponding to both the color component type and the prediction mode. matrixID in Lee is obtained using the sizeID, the color component type and the prediction mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2022/0086443).
Regarding claim 1 Lim discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining a single identifier for a quantization matrix, based on a block size identifier, a color component type, and a prediction mode of a block to be decoded in a picture (Figures 29 and 32 show identifier matrixID which is obtained based on sizeID, prediction mode and color component), wherein an Intra Block Copy prediction mode is considered as an Inter prediction mode when obtaining said single identifier (the prediction mode may include an intra mode, an inter mode and an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and a single identifier for the inter mode and a single identifier for the IBC mode may be the same – [0020]), and wherein said single identifier is obtained based on sizeId and matrixTypeId, where matrixTypeId indicates said color component type and said prediction mode of said block, and sizeId indicates said block size identifier (Figures 29 and 32 show identifier matrixID which is obtained based on sizeID, prediction mode and color component; it is noted that although Figures 29 and 32 do not explicitly contain the matrixTypeId identifier both Figures show that matrixID is obtained based on the data that matrixTypeId represents (color component type and prediction mode));
decoding a syntax element indicating a reference quantization matrix (scaling_list_pred_matrix_id_delta which is the reference matrix identifier – [0542]), wherein said syntax element specifies a difference between an identifier of said reference quantization matrix and said single identifier for said quantization matrix (refMatrixId=matrixId-scaling_list_pred_matrix_id_delta[sizeId] [matrixId]*(sizeId==3?3:1) – [0543]);
obtaining said quantization matrix based on said reference quantization matrix; de-quantizing transform coefficients for said block based on said quantization matrix (the encoder and/or the decoder may construct a quantization matrix necessary for the quantization/dequantization process using a predefined default matrix, at this time, a reference matrix identifier which is information on whether a default matrix is used may be signaled from the encoder to the decoder – [0260]); and
decoding said block based on said de-quantized transform coefficients (reconstructed picture in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2 Lim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said single identifier is obtained based on whether said prediction mode of said block is an Intra prediction mode or an Inter prediction mode (Figures 29 and 32 show Intra-frame coding and Inter-frame coding).
Regarding claim 3 Lim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a quantization matrix is signaled for luma component of said block, and a quantization matrix is derived for chroma component by considering said prediction mode as an Inter prediction mode (Figure 29 and 32 show quantization matrices being signaled and derived for both luma and chroma components for the inter prediction mode).
Claim 5 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 6 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 7 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 7 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
In regards to claim 9, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 9 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
In regards to claim 11, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
In regards to claim 13, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
In regards to claim 14, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
In regards to claim 15, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
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) 4, 8, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0086443) in view of Min et al. (KR 20130058524 A).
Regarding claim 4 Lim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein another reference quantization matrix is obtained by considering said Intra Block Copy prediction mode as an Intra mode (Figures 29 and 32 show a MatrixID value for reference quantization matrix that considers Intra-frame coding; the prediction mode may include an intra mode, an inter mode and an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and a single identifier for the inter mode and a single identifier for the IBC mode may be the same – [0020]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein said quantization matrix is obtained as an average of said reference quantization matrix and said another reference quantization matrix.
In his disclosure Min teaches a quantization matrix is obtained as an average of said reference quantization matrix and said another reference quantization matrix (One of the previously coded reference quantization matrices can be used as a prediction value. In this case, the residual signal is determined by the difference between the current quantization matrix and the previous quantization matrix. If the size of the previously coded reference quantization matrix is different from the current quantization matrix size, downsampling or upsampling is performed in a predetermined manner. For upsampling, linear interpolation can be used. For downsampling, use four average values for 4:1, 16:1 for 16:1, or two or four predefined values. The average value of can also be used. – p.19, Quantization Matrices section).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Min into the teachings of Lim because using the average of the quantization matrices yields the predictable result of reducing the complexity of the process and makes the process faster.
Claim 8 corresponds to the apparatus that performs the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 8 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, any decoder technology except the parsing/entropy decoding that is present in a decoder also necessarily needs to be present, in substantially identical form in a corresponding encoder. The description of encoder technologies can be abbreviated as they are the inverse of the comprehensively described decoder technologies. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482