DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/27/2026 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 11, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 have been amended, where Claims 2, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Further, Claims 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, and 21 have been canceled with Claim 1 being previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/18/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although it was believed Zhao would likely be overcome if the subject matter of claim 3 were to be incorporated into claim 2 (interview summary dated 03/24/2026), the examiner respectfully submits, after careful consideration, Zhao’s teachings remain relevant given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims. Regarding a “secondary transform index”, the examiner believes this is not clearly defined in the filed specification and appears to recite what is found in claim 2. As such, Zhao’s transform set index can be construed as the “secondary transform index”, which corresponds to a given transform set, depending on the signaled intra prediction mode (e.g. fig 7A). It is believed once a transform set has been selected, Zhao’s NSST index, which can be construed as the “core index”, can then select one of the candidate transforms from the determined transform set for transform processing (e.g. col. 36 lines 33-36). Zhao’s NSST index can therefore be said to depend on both the transform set index and the intra prediction mode via the transform set index, i.e. “determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index” given the BRI. However, further searches yielded the work of Ikai US 10,887,626 B2 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Ikai, which is believed to more clearly address the amended features. For this reason, a new rejection is presented based on Ikai’s teachings. Therefore this office action is made non-final.
2. Ikai discloses a secondary transform unit (fig. 17) that performs a non-separable transform (fig. 19). Fig. 19 shows a transform set index (secTrSetIdx) being generated in response to the signaled IntraPredMode. Also depicted is an index associated with the secondary transform (‘sec_idx’) that serves as input into secondary transform processing setting unit 152211. Here, sec_idx can be construed as the “secondary transform index” given the BRI. Based on the foregoing signals, an index (secTrIdx) is then generated for deriving a matrix ‘transMatrix’ at the Secondary Transform matrix deriving unit 152221, where said matrix is understood to be the core for secondary transform processing. Thus, secTrIdx can be construed to be the core index since it is used to determine the transMatrix. For this reason, the examiner respectfully submits, Ikai reasonably teaches and/or suggests “determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index”, where secTrIdx is based on IntraPredMode and sec_idx. Also please note fig. 17 which illustrates a similar relationship between the indices shown and the IntraPredMode. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits Ikai, either alone or in combination, reasonably teaches and/or suggests all of the disclosed features of the instant claims given their BRI.
3. Based on the filed amendments, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn since the patented and co-pending claim sets do not appear to disclose and/or suggest a “core index” and moreover, “determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index” as now recited in Claims 2, 11, and 20.
4. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
5. Accordingly, Claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
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.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikai US 10,887,626 B2, hereinafter referred to as Ikai, where Ikai’s Secondary Transform unit (fig. 17) which performs a Non-separable transform (fig. 19) generates an index for determining a transform matrix (i.e. a core) for transform processing. Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 2. (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations that follow, Ikai teaches and/or suggests “A method for video decoding in a decoder [See video decoding device in fig. 2 and associated text], comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture of a coded video bitstream [Please see col. 9 lines 38-67 and col. 10 lines 1-12 regarding PU information PUI which includes prediction information], the prediction information indicating an intra prediction mode for the current block [Same citations as above with respect to intra-prediction information. Also please note IntraPredMode in figs. 17 and 19, i.e. intra-prediction information] and a secondary transform index for the current block [Given the BRI of “secondary transform index”, see “sec_idx” (fig. 19) which serves as input into secondary transform processing setting unit; hence, this is understood to be analogous to a secondary transform index]; determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index [Given the BRI of “core index”, see parameter “secTrIdx” in fig. 19 (e.g. col. 29 lines 53-67 and col. 30 lines 1-29). This depends on “sec_idx” and “secTrSetIdx”, which in turn, depends on IntraPredMode. Also please note “coreTrIdx” (“core index”) in fig. 17 (e.g. col. 51 lines 16-67 and col. 52 lines 1-6).]; determining one of a plurality of secondary transform cores as a secondary transform core based on the core index [Based on “secTrIdx”, a secondary transform matrix (i.e. secondary transform core/kernel) can be determined from a table of transform matrices for transform processing (e.g. col. 29 lines 53-67 and col. 30 lines 1-29). Also note col. 51 lines 65-67 and col. 52 lines 1-6 with respect to “coreTrIdx”], a transform set for the current block including the plurality of secondary transform cores [A transform set is identified with respect to both figs. 17 and 19 above. Please note core transform set deriving unit and secondary transform set deriving unit, respectively.]; and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core.” [With reference to the foregoing, see video decoding device in fig. 2]
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2, since encoding and decoding are inverse operations that allow compressed video to be decoded and reconstructed at a receiving device. See for e.g. figs. 48 and 49A-49B of Ikai (e.g. col 57 lines 5-10) with respect to coding and decoding units.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2, since encoding and decoding are inverse operations that allow compressed video to be decoded and reconstructed at a receiving device. See for e.g. figs. 48 and 49A-49B of Ikai (e.g. col 57 lines 5-10) with respect to coding and decoding units.
As to the claimed hardware and software, please refer to col 60 lines 19-52 of Ikai for support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 7, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikai, in view of Zhang et al. WO 2020/228672 A1 (with reference to Priority Data PCT/CN2019/086420 - see attached), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Ikai discloses entropy coding syntax elements prescribed (e.g. col. 6 lines 8-36), where said syntax elements can be understood to include those previously referenced (see Ikai’s syntax elements in claim 2), the work of Zhang from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to further teach and/or suggest “further comprising: determining a context used for entropy coding of the secondary transform index based on the intra prediction mode; and decoding the secondary transform index based on the determined context.” [See for e.g. ¶00161 (¶00153 of priority document) where an RST index is context coded and context modeling is dependent on the coded luma/chroma intra prediction mode] In light of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding techniques of Ikai for performing non-separable secondary transform processing to include the teachings of Zhang as above which allow for contextual modeling of reduced secondary transforms in order to help provide for higher coding efficiency of video data (¶0046).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, (Currently Amended) Ikai teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Ikai further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: the plurality of secondary transform cores in the transform set [See e.g. col. 30 lines 1-15 regarding a secondary transform set] includes a first secondary transform core corresponding to the secondary transform index being a first value and a second secondary transform core corresponding to the secondary transform index being a second value [Fig. 54B teaches different secondary transforms corresponding to different values associated with sec_idx. For e.g. when sec_idx =1, this corresponds to secondary transform 1, and so on.]; and the determining the secondary transform index includes: determining the secondary transform index as the first value when the secondary transform core is the first secondary transform core [Sec_idx_decoder performs decoding to obtain index sec_idx that is subsequently sent to the secondary transform unit for processing (e.g. fig. 27). It is believed said index will have one of the values shown in fig. 54B corresponding to one of the secondary cores. For e.g. sec_idx =1 corresponds to secondary transform 1]; and determining the secondary transform index as the second value when the secondary transform core is the second secondary transform core.” [Same as above, except sec_idx can have another value such as 3 which corresponds to secondary transform 2, and so on.]
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-14, and 17-18 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of secondary transform cores includes a first secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 1 and a second secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 2, when the secondary transform index is 1, the core index is equal to (1 + (intraMode % 2)), intraMode indicating a mode number of the intra prediction mode, and when the secondary transform index is 2, the core index is equal to (2 - (intraMode % 2)).
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, wherein: the plurality of secondary transform cores includes a first secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 1 and a second secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 2,when the secondary transform index is 1, and a mode number of the intra prediction mode is less than 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 1 : 2), intraMode indicating the mode number of the intra prediction mode, when the secondary transform index is 1, and the mode number is larger than or equal to 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 2 : 1),when the secondary transform index is 2, and the mode number is less than 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 2 : 1), and when the secondary transform index is 2, and the mode number is larger than or equal to 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 1 : 2).
8. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 7, wherein the determining the context comprises: determining the context used for entropy coding of the secondary transform index based on whether a mode number of the intra prediction mode is an even number or an odd number.
9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 7, wherein the determining the context comprises: determining the context used for entropy coding of the secondary transform index based on whether a mode number of the intra prediction mode is greater than a mode number of a diagonal intra prediction mode.
13. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, wherein: the plurality of secondary transform cores includes a first secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 1 and a second secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 2, when the secondary transform index is 1, the core index is equal to (1 + (intraMode % 2)), intraMode indicating a mode number of the intra prediction mode, and when the secondary transform index is 2, the core index is equal to (2 - (intraMode % 2)).
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 11, wherein: the plurality of secondary transform cores includes a first secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 1 and a second secondary transform core corresponding to the core index being 2,when the secondary transform index is 1, and a mode number of the intra prediction mode is less than 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 1 : 2), intraMode indicating the mode number of the intra prediction mode, when the secondary transform index is 1, and the mode number is larger than or equal to 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 2 : 1),when the secondary transform index is 2, and the mode number is less than 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 2 : 1), and when the secondary transform index is 2, and the mode number is larger than or equal to 35, the core index is equal to (intraMode % 2 == 0 ? 1 : 2).
17. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, wherein the determining the context comprises: determining the context used for entropy encoding of the secondary transform index based on whether a mode number of the intra prediction mode is an even number or an odd number.
18. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, wherein the determining the context comprises: determining the context used for entropy encoding of the secondary transform index based on whether a mode number of the intra prediction mode is greater than a mode number of a diagonal intra prediction mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights