DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/15/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2024058637 A1, English equivalent document cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising (Kim; Pg. 28, second to last Para. A video processing system/method is used for video coding, including processors and memory.):
receiving a video bitstream comprising a current block (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A block from a bitstream is received.);
identifying a first prediction mode for the current block (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A first prediction mode is determined for a current block.);
when the first prediction mode is a particular prediction mode, selecting a first set of transform kernels as transform kernels for the current block (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. For a first prediction mode being a first intra mode derived based on DIMD, a first set of transform kernels, e.g. NSPT, is derived for a current block.);
when the first prediction mode is not the particular prediction mode, selecting a second set of transform kernels as the transform kernels for the current block (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. For a first prediction mode being not a first intra mode derived based on DIMD, a second set of transform kernels, LFNST, is derived for a current block.); and
applying a transform for the current block using the transform kernels (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A transform is used for a current block using transform kernels.).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the particular prediction mode is identified using a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A particular prediction mode is derived using DIMD.).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the transform is a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A transform is a NSPT.).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the transform is a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A transform is a LFNST.).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the second set of transform kernels is selected from a plurality of transform kernel sets based on coding information (Kim; Pg. 28 last Para., Pg. 29, 1st Para. A second set of transform kernels is at least selected/derived from different transform kernel sets, e.g. MTS, LFNST, NSPT, in accordance with prediction information.).
Claims 16-18 are directed to a method of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1-2, 5, and are rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
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 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.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (WO 2024058637 A1, English equivalent document cited).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in a first embodiment teaches the limitation in claim 1 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the transform is a secondary transform.
However, Kim in another embodiment teaches the transform is a secondary transform (Kim; Pg. 22, last Para. A LFNST transform is a secondary transform.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim’s first embodiment to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating teaching of the said embodiment wherein a secondary transform, e.g. LFNST, is employed, for the motivation to perform video coding using intra mode-based transform (Kim; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in a first embodiment teaches the limitation in claim 1 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the particular prediction mode is identified using a matrix-based prediction approach.
However, Kim in another embodiment teaches the particular prediction mode is identified using a matrix-based prediction approach (Kim; Pg. 28, 3rd, 4th Para. A particular mode is determined using a MIP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim’s first embodiment to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating teaching of the said embodiment wherein a secondary transform, e.g. LFNST, is employed, for the motivation to perform video coding using intra mode-based transform (Kim; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in a first embodiment teaches the limitation in claim 1 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but the first prediction mode is identified using a position dependent prediction (PDP) approach.
However, Kim in another embodiment teaches the first prediction mode is identified using a position dependent prediction (PDP) approach (Kim; Pg. 32, 3rd Para. A first prediction mode is determined via an intra prediction mode map based on a position dependency of a template matching block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim’s first embodiment to adapt an image processing approach, by incorporating teaching of the said embodiment wherein a position information is employed for intra mode determination, for the motivation to perform video coding using intra mode-based transform (Kim; Abstract.).
Claim 19 is directed to a method of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 7, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2024058637 A1, English equivalent document cited) in view of Byun (WO 2025150793 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the limitation in claim 2 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim 2 above.), but applying the transform comprises applying a fusion of individual predictors for the DIMD.
However, Byun teaches applying the transform comprises applying a fusion of individual predictors for the DIMD (Byun; Pg. 18, last Para. A combination/fusion of predictors of DIMD is determined before transform.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim to adapt a DIMD based prediction, by incorporating Byun’s teaching wherein combination/fusion of predictors of DIMD is determined, for the motivation to perform HoG based DIMD prediction (Byun; Pg. 17, 8th Para.).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the limitation in claim 2 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.), but deriving an intra mode for the current block based on a neighboring block of the current block; and populating an intra mode candidate list with the derived intra mode, wherein the first prediction mode is selected from the intra mode candidate list.
However, Byun teaches deriving an intra mode for the current block based on a neighboring block of the current block (Byun; Pg 20, last Para., Pg. 21, 1st Para. An intra mode is determined for a current block in accordance with a neighboring block.); and populating an intra mode candidate list with the derived intra mode, wherein the first prediction mode is selected from the intra mode candidate list (Byun; Pg 20, last Para., Pg. 21, 1st Para. An intra mode is assigned to fill an intra mode list/MPM list, wherein a first prediction mode is selected from the intra mode list.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim to adapt a DIMD based prediction, by incorporating Byun’s teaching wherein combination/fusion of predictors of DIMD is determined, for the motivation to perform DIMD prediction with MPM (Byun; Pg. 20,7th, 8th Para.).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2024058637 A1, English equivalent document cited) in view of Yu (WO 2024163447 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the limitation in claim 1 (Kim; See remarks regarding claim1 above.), but applying the transform for the current block comprises combining the matrix-based prediction with a non-separable primary transform.
However, Yu teaches applying the transform for the current block comprises combining the matrix-based prediction with a non-separable primary transform (Yu; Para. [0089]. MIP is combined with a NSPT for applying a transform for a current block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Kim to adapt an intra prediction mode, by incorporating Yu’s teaching wherein MIP-based intra modes are combined with NSPT, for the motivation to perform shift-invariant intra prediction (Yu; Abstract.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US Pub. 20250373852 A1) teaches a video coding system that perform intra-based transforms.
Karczewicz (US Pub. 20260012641 A1) teaches a video coding system that uses non-separable transform kernel selection based on prediction type in video coding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485