DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 05/12/2026 and is being filed as a second Non-Final for the reasons presented below.
In the filed response, Independent Claims 2 and12 have been amended. Further, Claims 4, 14, and 21 have been canceled and new Claims 22-23 have been added.
Accordingly, Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15-20, and 22-23 have been examined and are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Numbers 12200250, 11979603, and 11218728 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the incorporation of the previously identified allowable subject matter (pgs. 24-25 of the last office action on 02/12/2026). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, based on updated searches and further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the work of Kim et al. US 2019/0387241 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Kim, where Kim is believed to teach and/or suggest the amended features of claims 2 and 12 given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For these reasons, which are further discussed below, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. After carefully considering Kim’s teachings, the examiner finds Kim reasonably addresses “the secondary transform index being signaled after a last non-zero transform coefficient of the secondary transform coefficient block and before one or more of syntax elements related to coefficient coding of the secondary transform coefficient block” as amended. For e.g., ¶0315 shows the NSST index (i.e. secondary transform index) can be conditionally coded after the coding for the last non-zero transform coefficient position, i.e. “the secondary transform index being signaled after a last non-zero transform coefficient of the secondary transform coefficient block”. Kim then further shows the remaining residual coding portion may be processed which can be construed to mean coding related syntax for performing said residual coding. For e.g., with reference to fig. 18, ¶0317-¶0318, suggest when there is a specific position or specific 4x4 block where a transform coefficient exists (i.e. there is no X shown), then coding a flag (e.g. sig_coeff_flag) is not omitted and is performed, i.e. “before one or more of syntax elements related to coefficient coding of the secondary transform coefficient block”. Thus Kim is believed to teach the claimed ordering of the NSST index which follows after the coding for the last non-zero transform coefficient position but before coding a syntax element (for e.g. a flag) related to coefficient coding of the secondary transform coefficient block. As such, the examiner respectfully submits that Kim’s teachings are relevant and together with Nalci, the combined prior art reasonably teaches and/or suggests the disclosed features of the instant claims given their BRI.
3. The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Application No. 18/958,399 in view of Nalci. However, after careful consideration, the examiner respectfully submits that although Nalci does not teach “the secondary transform index being signaled after a last non-zero transform coefficient of the secondary transform coefficient block and before one or more of syntax elements related to coefficient coding of the secondary transform coefficient block” as amended, the work of Kim is found to be relevant as described above. Thus, the double patenting rejection of claims 2 and 12 can be maintained with respect to U.S. Application No. 18/958,399 in view of Nalci, and in further view of Kim. Please refer to the last office action (02/12/2026) for details with further reference to Kim as shown above. Further, since new claim 22 recites similar limitations as claims 2 and 12, the double patenting rejection also applies to claim 22.
The examiner further acknowledges Applicant’s remarks regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Patent No. 12,368,887 B2 in view of Nalci. However, for the same reason presented above, the work of Kim is deemed relevant for addressing the aforementioned limitations. Thus, the double patenting rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 can be maintained with respect to U.S. Patent No. 12,368,887 B2 in view of Nalci, and in further view of Kim. Further, since new claim 22 recites similar limitations as claims 2 and 12, the double patenting rejection also applies to claim 22.
The examiner further acknowledges Applicant’s remarks regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection with respect to U.S. Application No. 19/256,144 in view of Nalci. However, for the same reason presented above, the work of Kim is deemed relevant for addressing the aforementioned limitations. Thus, the double patenting rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 can be maintained with respect to U.S. Patent No. 12,368,887 B2 in view of Nalci, and in further view of Kim. Further, since new claim 22 recites similar limitations as claims 2 and 12, the double patenting rejection also applies to claim 22.
4. The Examiner is available to further 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. In light of the foregoing, Claims 2-3, 5-13, 15-20, and 22-23 have been examined and are pending.
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 2, 5-8, 12, 15-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2019/0387241 A1, in view of Nalci et al. US 2020/0404276 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 62/864,939), hereinafter referred to as Kim and Nalci, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Kim discloses and/or suggests “A method of video decoding [See decoder 200 in fig., 2 of Kim], the method comprising: obtaining prediction information for a current block in a current picture that is part of a coded video bitstream [See for e.g. fig. 21, where a secondary transform index can be obtained from a received bitstream, where said index can be construed as prediction information. Also refer to for e.g. ¶0441], the prediction information indicating that a secondary transform is used to code the current block [Same as above with respect to fig. 21, where said index is used to derive a secondary transform for coding a current block. ¶0441 further describes the NSST index for selecting the transform kernel] and including a syntax element that indicates a secondary transform index of a secondary transform core [See for e.g. figs. 21 and 25-26 along with ¶0441 regarding the secondary transform index for selecting the transform kernel and a core inverse transform]; determining the secondary transform core based at least on the secondary transform index [¶0441 further describes the NSST index for selecting the transform kernel. Also please refer to figs. 21 and 25-26 as noted above]; applying the secondary transform core to a secondary transform coefficient block to generate a primary transform coefficient block, the secondary transform coefficient block being generated by de-quantizing transform coefficients in the prediction information [See fig. 5 with respect to dequantization and inverse transform units in a decoder. Also please note fig. 21]; and reconstructing the current block based on the primary transform coefficient block [Based on the foregoing, decoder 200 (fig. 2) can reconstruct the image], wherein the syntax element indicating the secondary transform index is signaled at a transform block level for the secondary transform coefficient block [However Kim does not appear to address the aforementioned features. Please refer to Nalci below for support], the secondary transform index being signaled after a last non-zero transform coefficient of the secondary transform coefficient block [¶0315 for e.g. shows the NSST index (i.e. secondary transform index) can be conditionally coded after the coding for the last non-zero transform coefficient position] and before one or more of syntax elements related to coefficient coding of the secondary transform coefficient block [For e.g., with reference to fig. 18, ¶0317-¶0318, suggest when there is a specific position or specific 4x4 block where a transform coefficient exists (i.e. there is no X shown), then coding a flag (e.g. sig_coeff_flag) is not omitted and is performed], and the secondary transform coefficient block is of a single color component in a transform unit (TU).” [However Kim does not appear to address the aforementioned features. Please refer to Nalci below for support] Although Kim is deemed relevant art, Kim does not appear to address “wherein the syntax element indicating the secondary transform index is signaled at a transform block level for the secondary transform coefficient block, and the secondary transform coefficient block is of a single color component in a transform unit (TU).” Nalci on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features [See abstract, ¶0006-¶0012, and fig. 16, with respect to a LNFST index being signaled at the TU level. Further, Nalci teachings show said TU will have a given color component] In light of Nalci’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 Kim for non-separable secondary transforms to include the teachings of Nalci as above for reducing the signaling overhead of LFNST related indices/flags for improving the coding efficiency of the CABAC engine used in video compression standards (¶0005).
Regarding Claim 5, (Previously Presented) Kim and Nalci teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kim further teaches and/or suggests “wherein whether one or more of syntax elements associated with coding a transform coefficient in the secondary transform coefficient block are signaled is determined based on the secondary transform index and a position of the transform coefficient in the secondary transform coefficient block.” [See ¶0315-¶0318 as indicated in claim 2 above]
Regarding Claim 6, (Previously Presented) Kim and Nalci teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kim further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more of the syntax elements include a coefficient group (CG) flag, a significance flag, an absolute level flag, a parity flag, a sign flag, and an absolute remainder level.” [With reference to fig. 18 and given the limitation “the one or more of the syntax elements”, ¶0317-¶0318, indicates when there is a specific position or specific 4x4 block where a transform coefficient exists (i.e. there is no X shown), a coding a flag is not omitted and is performed. This can be a for e.g. a “sig_coeff_flag”, i.e. a sign flag.]
Regarding Claim 7, (Previously Presented) Kim and Nalci teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kim further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the CG flag, the significance flag, the absolute level flag, the parity flag, the sign flag, and the absolute remainder level are not signaled, the CG flag, the significance flag, the absolute level flag, the parity flag, the sign flag, and the absolute remainder level are derived as a default value.” [Although not with respect to said “sig_coeff_flag” as shown in claim 6, ¶0319 shows when a “coded_sub_block_flag” is omitted (here construed to mean not signaled), a corresponding value may be derived to 0 (i.e. default value). Thus, Kim teaches/suggests when a syntax element is not signaled, its value may be set to 0 as a default]
Regarding Claim 8, (Previously Presented) Kim and Nalci teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kim further teaches and/or suggests “wherein when the one or more of the syntax elements are not signaled and are derived as 0, the transform coefficient is 0.” [See ¶0319 where if the “coded_sub_block_flag” is omitted as shown above, the corresponding 4x4 transform coefficient blocks may be derived to zero values]
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 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. Please refer to figs. 1 and 2 which illustrate video encoder 100 and video decoder 200, respectively. Also note fig. 32.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 22, (New) Claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2. As to the required hardware and software, please refer to ¶0505-¶0506 of Kim.
Regarding Claim 23, (New) Claim 23 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, and 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. 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 of Claims 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional reference.
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