DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the specification objection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that the same context variable is set for two different bins of a bin string based on a control setting such as a flag {See Remarks Pg. 8}. The examiner provided feedback to the applicant in the interview conducted on 02/17/2026 to provide additional support in regards to control information indicating the context variable is to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string via a context variable setting flag. Furthermore, applicant has provided the same support which was provided in the interview (i.e. Method 2 of Fig. 2). Method 2 of Fig. 2 just shows an X in a box for sharing of context variable. The specification does not define that this X is defined via a flag and that this sharing is switched on/off via the flag (i.e. this is inherently how a flag operates in the standard).
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claim defines the limitation “based on control information indicating that the context variable is to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string”. Furthermore, applicant has provided the same support which was provided in the interview (i.e. Method 2 of Fig. 2). Method 2 of Fig. 2 just shows an X in a box for sharing of context variable. The specification does not disclose that this X is defined via a flag and that this sharing is switched on/off via the flag (i.e. this is inherently how a flag operates in the standard).
Additionally, claim 11 states that the context variable sharing flag indicates to arithmetically code only the first bin of the secondary transform control information with reference to the set context variable, while the second bin of the bin string is bypassed. However, the examiner could not locate support for this. From the specification, a bin specific bypass flag is utilized for fixed context variable or bypass coding on the second bin. Please clarify.
Additionally, claim 12 further defines that the control information is a context variable setting flag. The examiner could not locate support for where this X in Fig. 2 is supported by a flag or a context variable setting flag.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 13, and 15 recite the limitation in part "based on the flag". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 1 and 6- 7 do not define a flag.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egilmez et al. (herein after will be referred to as Egilmez) (US 20210058642) in view of Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim) (US 20230308656).
Regarding claim 1, Egilmez discloses an image processing device comprising:
control circuitry configured to: set a context variable for a bin string of secondary transform control information that is control information for secondary transformation; and [See Egilmez [0005] Context code a first bin and a second bin for LFNST. Also, see Figs. 3-4, video encoder or decoder.]
arithmetically code each of the first and second bin of the secondary transform control information with reference to the set context variable. [See Egilmez [0005] Context code a first bin and a second bin for LFNST. Also, see 0030, examples of context coding include CABAC.]
Egilmez does not explicitly disclose
based on control information indicating that the context variable is to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string,
However, Lim does disclose
based on control information indicating that the context variable is to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string, [See Lim [0168] A specific context table in advance so as to use a fixed content. Also, see 0174, a fixed context is used for each bin. Also, see 0188, the same context is commonly applied to the bins. Also, see Tables 4, 6-7, a context table applied to specific syntax element when entropy-coding is performed on that respective syntax element (i.e. A, E or F).
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 device by Egilmez to add the teachings of Lim, in order to in order to use specific contexts set up in advance without calculating contexts such as to enhance video coding efficiency [See Lim [0028]].
Regarding claim 2, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez discloses
wherein the secondary transform control information includes a secondary transform identifier indicating a type of the secondary transformation. [See Egilmez [Abstract] LFNST index.]
Regarding claim 3, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez discloses
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: generate the bin string by binarizing the secondary transform control information, and set the context variable for each bin of the generated bin string. [See Egilmez [0005] Context code a first bin and a second bin for LFNST. Also, see 0140, the LFNST index is binarized.]
Regarding claim 4, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez discloses
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate a secondary transform coefficient by performing the secondary transformation on a primary transform coefficient of a corresponding block that corresponds to the secondary transform control information. [See Egilmez [0100] Primary transform and secondary transform. Alternatively, see 0136, apply a separable transform 440 to coefficients of a residual block to generate separable transform coefficients and then may apply a LFNST 442 to the separable transform coefficients to generate transform coefficients.]
Regarding claim 5, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez discloses
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate a quantization coefficient by quantizing the generated secondary transform coefficient. [See Egilmez [Fig. 5] Quantization of LFNST.]
Regarding claim 6, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egilmez (US 20210058642) in view of Lim (US 20230308656) and in further view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Published Specification) (US 20250113043).
Regarding claim 9, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 7. Furthermore, Egilmez does not explicitly disclose
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the secondary transform control information by performing multivalue conversion on the bin string obtained through arithmetic decoding.
However, AAPA does disclose
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate the secondary transform control information by performing multivalue conversion on the bin string obtained through arithmetic decoding. [See AAPA [0041-0047] In VVC WD6 described in NPL 1…coding of this ST identifier is performed through the following procedure. At 0047, Then, the bin string is multivalued to obtain the ST identifier LFNST_idx.]
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 device by Egilmez to add the teachings of AAPA, in order to conform to the VVC standard when performing low frequency secondary transformation.
Claims 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egilmez (US 20210058642) in view of Lim (US 20230308656) and in further view of Tsukuba et al. (herein after will be referred to as Tsukuba) (US 20180160118).
Regarding claim 11, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez does not explicitly disclose
wherein, based on the flag indicating that the context variable is not to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string, arithmetically code only the first bin of the secondary transform control information with reference to the set context variable, while the second bin of the bin string is bypassed.
However, Tsukuba does disclose
wherein, based on the flag indicating that the context variable is not to be shared by a first bin and a second bin of the bin string, arithmetically code only the first bin of the secondary transform control information with reference to the set context variable, while the second bin of the bin string is bypassed. [See Tsukuba [0011] Decoding a bin sequence with reference to a bypass flag. Also, see Fig. 10.]
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 device by Egilmez (modified by Lim) to add the teachings of Tsukuba, in order to efficiently transit/record video by utilization of a bypass flag for indicating if the bin in Egilmez is bypass coded or context coded [See Tsukuba [0002]].
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egilmez (US 20210058642) in view of Lim (US 20230308656) and in further view of Kim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kim) (US 20150110198).
Regarding claim 12, Egilmez (modified by Lim) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Egilmez does not explicitly disclose
wherein the control information comprises a context variable setting flag.
However, Kim does disclose
wherein the control information comprises a context variable setting flag. [See Kim [0094] a shared context model mode flag.]
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 device by Egilmez (modified by Lim) to add the teachings of Kim, in order to improve upon video coding [See Kim [0001]].
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
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