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 Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 3 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream decoded by the video decoding method of claim 1. The bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional steps/elements that describe the decoding of the bitstream. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight.
Additionally, the computer readable medium does not include an instruction to execute the decoding process by a computer. The limitation “decoded by the video decoding method of claim 1” is not positively recited and is considered intended use (MPEP 2111.02). Therefore, the limitation “decoded by the video decoding method of claim 1” is not given patentable weight.
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)(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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo et al. (US 20220109878 A1).
Re claim 3, Koo discloses that encoded data (encoded video/image information) may be output in the form of a bitstream (Koo: paragraph [0052]). The transmitter 13 may transmit encoded video/image information or data output in the form of a bitstream to the receiver 21 of the receive device 20 in the form of file or streaming via a digital storage medium or a network, wherein the digital storage medium may include various storage media such as a universal serial bus (USB), a secure digital (SD) card, a compact disc (CD), a digital versatile disc (DVD), a blue-ray disc, a hard disk drive (HDD), and a solid state drive (SSD) (Koo: paragraph [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach the video decoding method of independent claim 1 and the video encoding method of independent claim 2.
The prior art is particularly deficient regarding obtaining, from a bitstream, a parameter related to whether a multiple transform set (MTS) can be applied to a decoding block; determining a transform type of the decoding block based on at least one among the parameter related to whether the multiple transform set (MTS) can be applied to the decoding block, and a size of the decoding block; and setting a non-zero area of the decoding block based on at least one among the parameter related to whether the multiple transform set (MTS) can be applied to the decoding block, and the size of the decoding block, wherein whether or not syntax information with regard to a maximum size of a transform applied to the decoding block is signaled to the video decoding device depends on whether a block size is greater than a predetermined size, wherein when the size of the decoding block is one of width 64 x height 64, width 64 x height 32, and width 32 x height 64, the non-zero area of the decoding block is width 32 x height 32 at upper-left of the decoding block, and 16, the non-zero area of the decoding block is all area within the decoding block, as recited in claim 1.
The prior art is particularly deficient regarding determining a value of a parameter related to whether the multiple transform set (MTS) can be applied to an encoding block; determining a non-zero area including one or more non-zero coefficients for the encoding block based on at least one among the parameter related to whether the multiple transform set can be applied to the encoding block, and a size of the encoding block; determining a transform type of the encoding block based on at least one among the parameter related to whether the multiple transform set can be applied to the encoding block, and the size of the encoding block; wherein whether or not syntax information with regard to a maximum size of a transform applied to the encoding block is signaling to a video decoding device depends on whether a block size is greater than a predetermined size, wherein when the size of the encoding block is one of width 64 x height 64, width 64 x height 32, and width 32 x height 64, the non-zero area of the encoding block is width 32 x height 32 at upper-left of the encoding block, and 16, the non-zero area of the encoding block is all area within the encoding block, as recited in claim 2.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482