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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 and 06/30/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 12 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12212752 in view of Jung et al. (US 20220303567) (hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12212752 Claim 12
An inverse quantization unit that inverse quantizes quantization coefficients using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied, and
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the image processing device to at least perform inverse quantization on a quantization coefficient;
an inverse transformation unit that generates a prediction residual, which is the residual between the image and the predicted image of the image, by inverse coefficient transforming the transformation coefficients generated by the inverse quantization when transformation skip is not applied, and
normalize a transform coefficient generated by the inverse quantization using a scaling parameter depending on whether a transform skip is to be applied, perform inverse coefficient transformation on the transform coefficient normalized to generate a predicted residual that is a residual between an image and a predicted image of the image when the transform skip is not to be applied,
skips the inverse coefficient transformation when transformation skip is applied.
skip the inverse coefficient transformation when the transform skip is applied,
Although claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12212752 does not specify using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied, Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 teaches using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12212752 with the using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied of Jung in order to enhance coding efficiency (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12212752 Claim 17
An image processing device comprising a transformation unit that generates transformation coefficients by coefficient transforming a prediction residual, which is the residual between the image and the predicted image of the image, when transformation skip is not applied, and
An image processing device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the image processing device to at least perform coefficient transformation on a predicted residual that is a residual between an image and a predicted image of the image to generate a transform coefficient when a transform skip is not to be applied,
skips the coefficient transformation when transformation skip is applied, and
skip the coefficient transformation when the transform skip is to be applied;
a quantization unit that quantizes the transformation coefficients using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied.
perform quantization on the transform coefficient when the transform skip is not to be applied and perform the quantization on the predicted residual when the transform skip is to be applied;
Although claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12212752 does not specify using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied, Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 teaches using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12212752 with the using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied of Jung in order to enhance coding efficiency (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 7.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation(s) “an inverse quantization unit that inverse quantizes” and “an inverse transformation unit that generates” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Furthermore, these limitations will be interpreted to mean intended hardware structure.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation(s) “a quantization unit that quantizes” and “a transformation unit that generates” invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Furthermore, these limitations will be interpreted to mean intended hardware structure.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 7, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts taught therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently teaches the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20220303567) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Tamse et al. (US 20210321111) (hereinafter Tamse).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches inverse quantizes quantization coefficients using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where inverse quantization is performed using a corrected quantization parameter with normalization with qp offset and scaling according to corrected qp and paragraph 213-216 regarding dependent quantization and transform skip being mutually exclusive optional applications such that transform skip is not applied when dependent quantization is applied- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image), and
by inverse coefficient transforming the transformation coefficients generated by the inverse quantization when transformation skip is not applied, and skips the inverse coefficient transformation when transformation skip is applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach intended hardware structure as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Tamse, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches An inverse quantization unit (see Tamse paragraph 21 regarding coding process performed by processor) that
an inverse transformation unit that generates a prediction residual, which is the residual between the image and the predicted image of the image (see Tamse paragraph 21 regarding coding process performed by processor and Tamse paragraph 79 regarding prediction residual- in combination with Jung, the prediction residual may be generated by the known process of Tamse and implemented by the processor of Tamse),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Jung to include the teaching of Tamse so that in combination with Jung, the prediction residual may be generated by the known process of Tamse and implemented by the processor of Tamse.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide an implementable hardware framework for an encoding/decoding device (see Tamse paragraphs 21 and 79).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the inverse quantization unit inverse quantizes the quantization coefficients using the quantization parameter with a value added according to the dependent quantization as the corrected quantization parameter (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, 232, and 240-244 regarding value added to quantization parameter, dependent quantization, and inverse quantization using quantization coefficients).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the inverse quantization unit inverse quantizes the quantization coefficients using the corrected quantization parameter when a flag indicating whether dependent quantization is applied is true and a flag indicating whether transformation skip is applied is false (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where inverse quantization is performed using a corrected quantization parameter with normalization with qp offset and scaling according to corrected qp and paragraph 213-216 regarding dependent quantization and transform skip being mutually exclusive optional applications such that transform skip is not applied when dependent quantization is applied- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the inverse quantization unit inverse quantizes the quantization coefficients using the uncorrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is not applied or when transformation skip is applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the inverse quantization unit inverse quantizes the quantization coefficients using the uncorrected quantization parameter when a flag indicating whether dependent quantization is applied is false or a flag indicating whether transformation skip is applied is true (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Independent claim(s) 6 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit in method form, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches generates transformation coefficients by coefficient transforming (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image)
when transformation skip is not applied, and skips the coefficient transformation when transformation skip is applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image), and
quantizes the transformation coefficients using a corrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is applied and transformation skip is not applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where inverse quantization is performed using a corrected quantization parameter with normalization with qp offset and scaling according to corrected qp and paragraph 213-216 regarding dependent quantization and transform skip being mutually exclusive optional applications such that transform skip is not applied when dependent quantization is applied- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach intended hardware structure as needed for the limitations of claim 7.
Tamse, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches An image processing device comprising
a transformation unit (see Tamse paragraph 21 regarding coding process performed by processor) that
a prediction residual, which is the residual between the image and the predicted image of the image (see Tamse paragraph 21 regarding coding process performed by processor and Tamse paragraph 79 regarding prediction residual- in combination with Jung, the prediction residual may be generated by the known process of Tamse and implemented by the processor of Tamse),
a quantization unit (see Tamse paragraph 21 regarding coding process performed by processor) that
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Jung to include the teaching of Tamse so that in combination with Jung, the prediction residual may be generated by the known process of Tamse and implemented by the processor of Tamse.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide an implementable hardware framework for an encoding/decoding device (see Tamse paragraphs 21 and 79).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the quantization unit quantizes the transformation coefficients using the quantization parameter with a value added according to the dependent quantization as the corrected quantization parameter (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, 232, and 240-244 regarding value added to quantization parameter, dependent quantization, and inverse quantization using quantization coefficients).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the quantization unit quantizes the transformation coefficients using the corrected quantization parameter when a flag indicating whether dependent quantization is applied is true and a flag indicating whether transformation skip is applied is false (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where inverse quantization is performed using a corrected quantization parameter with normalization with qp offset and scaling according to corrected qp and paragraph 213-216 regarding dependent quantization and transform skip being mutually exclusive optional applications such that transform skip is not applied when dependent quantization is applied- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the quantization unit quantizes the transformation coefficients or the prediction residual using the uncorrected quantization parameter when dependent quantization is not applied or when transformation skip is applied (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Jung and Tamse teaches wherein the quantization unit quantizes the transformation coefficients or the prediction residual using the uncorrected quantization parameter when a flag indicating whether dependent quantization is applied is false or a flag indicating whether transformation skip is applied is true (see Jung paragraphs 97, 147, 213-216, 225-226, and 240-244 regarding performing inverse quantization on a transform coefficient with quantization parameter based on transform skip indication to predict a residual, where transformation is skipped when transform skip is indicated- it is known that quantization and inverse quantization are reciprocal processes respective to encoding and decoding an image).
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 7, albeit in method form, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483