DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received on 11/25/2024, wherein claims 2-21 are pending and are examined as follows. Please note, claim 1 was previously canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 02/27/2025 and 04/23/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,603, hereinafter referred to as 603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 603 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. A table is provided below to illustrate the mapping between the claim sets. Please note, to preserve space, the remaining patented cases and co-pending applications are shown in the same table identified by their associated patent and application numbers.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,514, hereinafter referred to as 514. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 514 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,218,728, hereinafter referred to as 728. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 728 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,887, hereinafter referred to as 887. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 887 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 11, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,250, hereinafter referred to as 250. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 250 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of co-pending application no. 18/963,111 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as 111. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 111 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 16, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 12 of co-pending application no. 19/256,144 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as 144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of 144 are similarly related to determining a secondary transform core based on prediction information, namely an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index, and thus, anticipate the features found in the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Please refer to the table below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
**Note: The items below that are BOLD/UNDERLINED in the Instant Application/Patented claims, respectively, indicate differences in the claim limitation.
Instant Application 18/958,399
Patented Cases
Claim 2
A method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture of a coded video bitstream, the prediction information indicating an intra prediction mode for the current block and a secondary transform index for the current block; determining a secondary transform core based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index; and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core.
Note 1: since the determined secondary transform core is used to generate a primary transform coefficient block which enables the current block to be reconstructed (claim 1 of 603), the limitation above “and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core” finds support in claim 1 of 603.
Note 2: For similar reasons presented in Note 1, the limitation “and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core” also finds support in claim 1 of 728.
Note 3: Although the claims of 514 relate to video encoding, they appear to address the features of instant claim 1, particularly claims 4 and 9 which disclose prediction information, i.e. a secondary transform index to indicate a secondary transform core of the current block, where determining the secondary transform index is based on the secondary transform core and a mode number of an intra prediction mode of the current block.
Note 4: For similar reasons presented in Note 1, the limitation “and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core” also finds support in claim 6 of 887.
Note 5: claim 11 of 250 addresses video encoding and prediction information. Said prediction information appears to be further defined in claims 10 and 14 of 250.
Note 6: For similar reasons presented in Note 1, the limitation “and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core” also finds support in claim 12 of 144 and claim 2 of 111
US Patent No. 11,979,603 B2
Claim 1
A method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture that is a part of a coded video sequence, the prediction information indicating an intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index for the current block; determining a secondary transform core based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index, the secondary transform core having a size of M×N; de-quantizing transform coefficients from the prediction information to generate a secondary transform coefficient block having a size of W×H, wherein one of H or W is less than both M and N; applying the secondary transform core having the size of M×N to the secondary transform coefficient block having the size of W×H by applying a sub-section of size W×H of the secondary transform core to the secondary transform coefficient block and generating a W×H primary transform coefficient block; and reconstructing the current block based on the primary transform coefficient block.
US Patent No. 11,218,728 B2
Claim 1
A method for video decoding in a decoder, comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture that is a part of a coded video sequence, the prediction information indicating a first intra prediction mode and a secondary transform index for the current block; determining a secondary transform core based on the first intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index; generating a primary transform coefficient block based on the secondary transform core and a first transform coefficient block of the current block, the first transform coefficient block being de-quantized from the prediction information, and a size of the first transform coefficient block being less than a size of the secondary transform core; determining whether to transpose the primary transform coefficient block based on a type of one-dimensional cross-component linear model; transposing the primary transform coefficient block based on a determination that the primary transform coefficient block is to be transposed; and reconstructing the current block based on the transposed primary transform coefficient block.
US Patent No. 12,192,514 B2
Claims 1, 4, and 9
US Patent No. 12,368,887 B2
Claim 6
US Patent No. 12,200,250 B2
Claims 10, 11, and 14
Co-pending Cases
US Application No. 19/256,144
Claim 12
US Application No. 18/963,111
Claim 2
Claim 3
The method of claim 2, wherein: a transform set includes a plurality of secondary transform cores, and the determining includes: determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index; and selecting one of the plurality of secondary transform cores as the secondary transform core based on the core index.
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, 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 %o 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 00 2)).
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 5
The method of claim 3, 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).
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 6
The method of claim 2, wherein: the determining the secondary transform core includes determining the secondary transform core as one of a plurality of secondary transform cores based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index.
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 7
The method of claim 2, wherein the determining comprises: 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.
Claim 11 of 603
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a context used for entropy coding of the secondary transform index based on a mode number of the intra prediction mode.
Claim 10 of 728, 514, and 250
Claim 5 of 887 and 144
Not in 111
Claim 8
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.
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 9
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.
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 10
The method of claim 7, wherein: a transform set includes a plurality of secondary transform cores, and the determining includes selecting one of the plurality of secondary transform cores as the secondary transform core based on the secondary transform index.
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 11
Similar to instant claim 2
See claim 1 of 603
See claim 1 of 728
See claims 1, 4, and 9 of 514
See claim 6 of 887
See claims 10, 11, and 14 of 250
See claim 12 of 144
See claim 2 of 111
Claim 12
Similar to instant claim 3
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 13
Similar to instant claim 4
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 14
Similar to instant claim 5
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 15
Similar to instant claim 6
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim 16
Similar to instant claim 7
See claim 11 of 603
See claim 10 of 728, 514, and 250
See claim 5 of 887 and 144
Not in 111
Claim 17
Similar to instant claim 8
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, 111
Claim 18
Similar to instant claim 9
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, 111
Claim 19
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, 111
Claim 20
Similar to instant claim 2
See claim 1 of 603
See claim 1 of 728
See claims 1, 4, and 9 of 514
See claim 6 of 887
See claims 10, 11, and 14 of 250
See claim 12 of 144
See claim 2 of 111
Claim 21
Similar to instant claim 3
Not in 603, 728, 514, 887, 250, 144, and 111
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 2-3, 6, 11-12, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. US 10,491,922 B2, hereinafter referred to as Zhao, where Zhao describes non-separable secondary transforms for video coding (e.g. abstract). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 2, (New) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhao discloses and/or suggests “A method for video decoding in a decoder [See video decoder 30 in fig. 9, with details of inverse transform unit 278 depicted in 10B], comprising: decoding prediction information for a current block in a current picture of a coded video bitstream [Zhao describes coded/decoded information (col. 7 lines 59-67, col. 30 lines 29-31, and col. 40 lines 63-65). This includes intra-prediction modes. Also see fig. 9 regarding decoded syntax elements used for motion compensation and intra prediction], the prediction information indicating an intra prediction mode for the current block [Please refer to citations above. Also note col. 15 lines 39-41, where video decoder may use a signaled prediction mode (intra- or inter-prediction) to form a predicted block] and a secondary transform index for the current block [Given the BRI, the claimed “secondary transform index” can be interpreted as the transform set index of Zhao (fig. 7A). Also see col. 36 lines 61-67 and col. 37 lines 34-36, with respect to a syntax element for indicating an index that facilitates selecting a first inverse transform from a subset of non-separable transforms]; determining a secondary transform core based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index [Video decoder 30 can select the secondary transform (i.e. core) once the transform set has been determined via the transform set index which corresponds with the luma intra mode (fig 7A)]; and reconstructing the current block based on the determined secondary transform core.” [See fig. 11. A first inverse transform (corresponds to above secondary transform) operates on inverse quantized first coefficient block to generate a second coefficient block from which the decoded video can be reconstructed as shown]
Regarding claim 3, (New) Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhao further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: a transform set includes a plurality of secondary transform cores [See col. 41 lines 56-67 and col. 42 lines 1-5 (with reference to mapping in fig. 7A) regarding 12 non-separable 16x16 transform sets, with each set containing 16x16 transform candidates specified by a luma intra prediction mode], and the determining includes: determining a core index based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index [Once the transform set has been identified via the mapping with the signaled intra mode (e.g. fig 7A), a NSST index (col. 36 lines 30-36) can determine the selected candidate transform from the indexed set, where said NSST index is construed to be a “core index” given its BRI]; and selecting one of the plurality of secondary transform cores as the secondary transform core based on the core index.” [The NSST selects a secondary transform candidate from a subset of secondary transforms (e.g. col. 41 lines 51-55)]
Regarding claim 6, (New) Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhao further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: the determining the secondary transform core includes determining the secondary transform core as one of a plurality of secondary transform cores based on the intra prediction mode and the secondary transform index.” [Based on the mapping of secondary transform sets to the luma intra modes in fig. 7A, a secondary transform core from a plurality of candidate secondary transform cores of a selected secondary transform set can be indexed via the NSST index]
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. fig. 1 of Zhao. Also refer to figs. 8 and 9 which illustrate video encoder 20 and video decoder 30, respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
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. fig. 1 of Zhao. Also refer to figs. 8 and 9 which illustrate video encoder 20 and video decoder 30, respectively. As to the claimed hardware and software, please refer to col 51 lines 13-32 of Zhao for support.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, 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, (New) Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhao however does not appear to address the features of claim 7. Zhang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the determining comprises: 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 Zhao for non-separable secondary transforms to include the teachings of Zhang as above which allows for contextual modeling of reduced secondary transforms in order to help provide for higher coding efficiency of video data (¶0046).
Regarding claim 10, (New) Zhao and Zhang teach all the limitations of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhao further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: a transform set includes a plurality of secondary transform cores [See col 41 lines 56-67 and col. 42 lines 1-5 where each transform set contains three 16x16 candidate secondary transform cores], and the determining includes selecting one of the plurality of secondary transform cores as the secondary transform core based on the secondary transform index.” [Based on the transform set index of fig. 7A, a particular transform set can be identified, from which one of the three candidate secondary transform cores can be selected]
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-14, and 17-19 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. (New) The method of claim 3, 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 %o 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 00 2)).
5. (New) The method of claim 3, 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. (New) 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. (New) 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. (New) The method of claim 12, 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. (New) The method of claim 12, 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. (New) 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. (New) 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.
19. (New) The method of claim 16, Zhao further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: a 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; 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; and determining the secondary transform index as the second value when the secondary transform core is the second secondary transform core.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
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