DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,175 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12,219,175 B2 as detailed below for at least claim 1.
Instant Application No. 18/989,311
U.S. Patent No. 12,219,175 B2
1. A decoding method, applicable to a decoder and comprising: decoding a bitstream to determine a prediction mode parameter; determining a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) parameter of a current block, in response to the prediction mode parameter indicating that MIP is used to determine an intra prediction value; determining transform coefficients of the current block and a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index of the current block; determining a mapping mode of an LFNST transform set according to the MIP parameter; selecting, according to the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set, one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate sets, and determining, according to the LFNST index, and LFNST transform kernel used for the current block from the selected LFNST transform kernel candidate set; and transforming the transform coefficients using the LFNST transform kernel.
6. A transform method, applied to a decoder, the method comprising: parsing a bitstream and determining a prediction mode parameter of a current block; parsing the bitstream and determining a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) parameter when the prediction mode parameter indicates that MIP is used for the current block to determine an intra prediction value; parsing the bitstream and determining a Low-Frequency Non-Separable Transform (LFNST) index and a transform coefficient of the current block; determining an LFNST transform kernel used for the current block according to the MIP parameter when the LFNST index indicates that an LFNST is used for the current block; and performing a transform processing on the transform coefficient by using the LFNST transform kernel; wherein the MIP parameter comprises a MIP mode index, the MIP mode index is used for indicating a MIP mode used for the current block, and the MIP mode is used for indicating a calculation and derivation mode for determining the intra prediction value of the current block by using MIP; wherein different MIP modes have different MIP mode indices; wherein determining the LFNST transform kernel used for the current block according to the MIP parameter when the LFNST index indicates that the LFNST is used for the current block comprises: determining a value of an LFNST intra prediction mode index according to a value of the MIP mode index, and selecting one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate sets according to the value of the LFNST intra prediction mode index; or selecting one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate sets according to a value of the MIP mode index; wherein the LFNST transform kernel candidate set contains two or more preset LFNST transform kernels.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,175 B2.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,175 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17 which recites the limitation, “… determining a mapping mode of an LFNST transform set according to the MIP parameter…” it is unclear what is considered as a mapping mode. As best understood by the Examiner and for purposes of applying prior art, the claimed “mapping mode of the an LFNST transform set…” is mapping the LFNST to a prediction mode.
Claims 2-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Nam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0060751 A1)
As per claim 17, A bitstream generated by a method, the method comprising … is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP§2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable medium storage medium storing a bitstream as recited in claim 17 merely serves as support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Nam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20220060751 A1) para [0026] where disclosed is “a computer-readable recording medium according to another aspect of the disclosure may store the bitstream generated by the image encoding apparatus or the image encoding method of the present disclosure”).
Regarding claims 18-20, the claims depend from the product by process in claim 17 and thus are analyzed and rejected with respected to claim 17.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Huo et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0329862).
As per claim 1, Huo teaches a decoding method, applicable to a decoder and comprising: decoding a bitstream to determine a prediction mode parameter (abstract, [0008], [0140-0141], [0143], fig. 2B, fig. 7 el. S701 “parse a bitstream and determine a prediction mode parameter of a current block”); determining a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) parameter of a current block, in response to the prediction mode parameter indicating that MIP is used to determine an intra prediction value (fig. 7 el. S702 “parsing the bitstream and determining a matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) parameter when the prediction mode parameter indicates that MIP is used for the current block to determine and intra prediction value” and [0145-0148]); determining transform coefficients of the current block and a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index of the current block (fig. 7 el. S703, and [0150]; “parsing the bitstream and determining an LFNST index and a transform coefficient of the current block”); determining a mapping mode of an LFNST transform set according to the MIP parameter ([0039], [0119], [0158], [0196] and fig. 8 “in the LFNST technology, an LFNST transform process may include following acts: configuring a core parameter, an intra prediction mode mapping”); selecting, according to the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set, one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate set ([0087], [0107], [0153] and fig. 8) one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate sets, and determining, according to the LFNST index, and LFNST transform kernel used for the current block from the selected LFNST transform kernel candidate set (fig. 7 el. 704; [0107], [0168-0172], [; and transforming the transform coefficients using the LFNST transform kernel (fig. 7 el. S705 and [0199]).
As per claim 9, which is the corresponding encoding method, applicable to an encoder with the limitations of the decoding method, applicable to a decoder as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream, with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0329862 A1) and in view of Koo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0199189 A1).
As per claim 2, Huo teaches wherein the MIP parameter comprises a size parameter of the current block (fig. 4; [0056], [0066-0068]). Huo does not explicitly disclose determining the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) in response to the size parameter not satisfying a first preset condition.
However, Koo teaches determining the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) in response to the size parameter not satisfying a first present condition (fig. 11, [0223-0224] and claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo with Huo in order to provide a method and an apparatus for increasing efficiency in transform index coding, [0005].
As per claim 10, which is the corresponding encoding method with the limitations of the decoding method as recited in claim 2. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of the decoding method as recited in claim 2. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Nam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0060751 A1).
As per claim 1, Nam teaches a decoding method, applicable to a decoder (title) and comprising: decoding a bitstream to determine a prediction mode parameter (fig. 2, fig. 13, fig. 23, fig. 24 and [0110] and [0298-0299], [0300]), determining a matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) parameter, in response to the prediction mode parameter indicating that MIP is used to determine an intra prediction value (table 3, table 4, table 11, table 13, [0200], [0285-0287], [0291-0293]); determining transform coefficients of the current block ([0086], [0092] and fig. 2) and a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) index of the current block (fig. 23, [0299-0300]) determining a mapping mode of LFNST transform set according to the MIP parameter (table 12, table 13, figs. 13-14 and [0291-0293]); selecting, according to the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set, one LFNST transform kernel candidate set from a plurality of LFNST transform kernel candidate sets, and determining, according to the LFNST index, and LFNST transform kernel used for the current block from the selected LFNST transform kernel candidate set ([0293], “an LFNST transform set having a value of 2 may be selected, and a transform kernel specified by st_idx (or lfnst_idx) among transform kernels included in a corresponding transform set may be used for secondary transform/inverse transform of the current block”) and transforming the transform coefficients using the LFNST transform kernel (fig. 2, fig. 22).
As per claim 9, which is the corresponding encoding method with the limitations of the decoding method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 17, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 17 also applies here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al., () and further in view or Koo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0199189 A1).
As per claim 2, Nam teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, Nam teaches wherein the MIP parameter comprises a size parameter of the current block ([0200],[0204], [0285-0287]). Nam does not explicitly disclose determining the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) in response to the size parameter not satisfying a first preset condition.
However, Koo teaches determining the mapping mode of the LFNST transform set using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) in response to the size parameter not satisfying a first present condition (fig. 11, [0223-0224] and claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Koo with Nam in order to provide a method and an apparatus for increasing efficiency in transform index coding, [0005].
As per claim 10, which is the corresponding encoding method with the limitations of the decoding method as recited in claim 2. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of the decoding method as recited in claim 2. Thus, the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 11-16, 19-20 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486