DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 1 of the instant Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 of the (Application No. 18/241,441) now issued patent US 12,244,860, claim 1, of the (Application No.671,788) now patent US 11/792,430 and claim 1, of the (Application No. 17/327,246) of the patent US 11,297,347, as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
The nonstatutory obviousness 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.
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the instant claim 1 relies on a limitation claiming; “deriving modified transform coefficients based on an inverse non-separable transform for the transform coefficients, “ and the conflicting patent at claim 1, recites; “deriving modified transform coefficients based on an inverse reduced secondary transform (RST) for the transform coefficients,”, it is found that each and every limitation of the noted patents recite the same secondary transform being applied to a primary transform, while the remaining content is identically disclosed and recited as,
“obtain residual information, a transform index, and information on an intra prediction mode from a bitstream;
derive transform coefficients for a target block based on the residual information; and
derive modified transform coefficients based on an inverse non-separable transform for the transform coefficients,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a transform set based on a mapping relationship according to the intra prediction mode applied to the target block;
select a transform kernel matrix, based on the transform index, from among two transform kernel matrices comprised in the transform set; and
derive the modified transform coefficients by performing the inverse non-separable transform based on the transform kernel matrix,
wherein the transform index is decoded based on a context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) and by:
deriving, based on context sets, context information of a syntax element for the transform index, the context sets including a first context set and a second context set;
decoding, based on the context information, bins of the syntax element for the transform index, the bins including a first bin and a second bin; and
deriving, based on the decoded bins, a value of the syntax element for the transform index, wherein
(i) based on a tree type of the target block being a dual tree type, the context information is derived based on the first context set, and
(ii) based on the tree type of the target block being a single tree type, the context information is derived based on the second context set,
wherein the first context set comprises
(i) first context information for the first bin of the syntax element for the transform index and
(ii) second context information for the second bin of the syntax element for the transform index, and
wherein the second context set comprises (i) third context information for first bin of the syntax element for the transform index and (ii) fourth context information for the second bin of the syntax element for the transform index.“
While the instant claim supplementary recites the apparatus comprising: ” a memory; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor configured to:”, the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious to consider that any computing device or method of such apparatus should have the memory and processor components in order to execute or implement the video coding claimed, hence deeming the claims patentably indistinct from each other.
The provisional Obviousness Double Patenting determination is based on the precedent examination rules set below.
“A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.” The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2131.02.
The filing of a Terminal Disclaimer will set the application on path to allowance based on the specific context set/information combinations claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
3. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seunghwan Kim et al., (hereinafter Kim) (US 2020/0177889) in view of Sun-il Lee et al., (hereinafter Lee) (US 2019/0052876).
Re Claim 1. Kim discloses, a decoding apparatus for an image decoding, the decoding (at a decoder 210 in Fig.2, Par.[0050] the decoding apparatus performing a transform method by obtaining a non-separable transform index and the resulting transform coefficients for the target block, by selecting one of the plurality of transform kernels included in the transform set based on the transform index, then generating the modified non-separable transform coefficients for the target block using the transform kernel based on the intra-prediction mode and the size of the target block resulted from the quad-tree partitioning process in the same order recited by the instant claim –and synoptically recited at claims 1, 16, 18) apparatus comprising:
a memory (memory 160, at Fig.1, Par.[0145]); and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor ( processor connected to memory, Par.[0145]) configured to:
obtain residual information, a transform index, and information on an intra prediction mode (intra-prediction mode information, Par.[0112, 0132]) from a bitstream (receiving decode information from the bitstream on the intra prediction coding method, the quantized value of the transform coefficients regarding the residual Par.[0054]- [0056] and residual information Par.[0073] a transform index Par.[0082]);
derive transform coefficients for a target block based on the residual information (deriving the transform coefficients at unit S310 in Fig.3 from the residual samples Par.[0078]); and
derive modified transform coefficients based on an inverse non-separable transform for the transform coefficients (deriving the transform coefficients at unit S310 in Fig.3
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from the residual samples Par.[0078]),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a transform set based on a mapping relationship according to the intra prediction mode applied to the target block (the transform set is determined on based on the intra-prediction mode mapping as applied to the target block (CU or sub-block), Par.[0092], [0096]);
select a transform kernel matrix, based on the transform index, from among two transform kernel matrices comprised in the transform set (selecting an intra-mode based transform kernel for the target block comprised in the 35 transform sets, Par.[0091]); and
derive the modified transform coefficients by performing the inverse non-separable transform based on the transform kernel matrix (the inverse transform being based on matrix kernels, Par.[0008-0009, 0083, 0114-0117] and Fig.5, Par.[0120-0121] and Fig.6)
wherein the transform index is decoded based on a context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) (performing context CABAC coding Par.[0044]) and by:
deriving, based on context sets, context information of a syntax element for the transform index, the context sets including a first context set and a second context set (deriving from transform index values indicative of three transform kernels, for NSST, Par.[0097] of binarized NSST index according to the kernel size [0116]);
decoding, based on the context information, bins of the syntax element for the transform index, the bins including a first bin and a second bin (the transform set may be different in variable length binarization Par.[0117]); and
deriving, based on the decoded bins, a value of the syntax element for the transform index, wherein (decoding Par.[0130], Fig.7]),
Similarly, the analogous art to Lee teaches in detail the specific tree partitions being, decoded based on different context sets according to a tree type for a partitioning structure of the target block (a quadtree partition of tree coding units, or prediction units, Par.[0077-0078] Fig.4)
(i) based on a tree type of the target block being a dual tree type (based on the quad tree Par.[0253, 0258]), the context information is derived based on the first context set (of the CABAC context, Par.[0283-0284]), and
(ii) based on the tree type of the target block being a single tree type, the context information is derived based on the second context set (as being defined as single tree partition structures for similar luma and chroma, Par.[0069]),
wherein the first context set comprises
(i) first context information for the first bin of the syntax element for the transform index and (ii) second context information for the second bin of the syntax element for the transform index (the first and second bins are based on different binary contexts being assigned by the adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) according to the transform block shape or the split shape i.e., tree type, Par.[0283], and
wherein the second context set comprises (i) third context information for first bin of the syntax element for the transform index (i.e., a third context information is derived by a part index (PID) at Fig.14 Par.[0024, 0037-0039]) and (ii) fourth context information i.e., a fourth context information is derived by a part index (PID) according to shapes and sizes of the coding units, per Fig.14 Par.[0024, 0037-0039]) for the second bin of the syntax element for the transform index (and by different binary contexts assigned by the adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) according to the transform block shape or the split shape i.e., tree type, Par.[0283] obtained from primary and secondary transforms, as being obtained by decoder from signaled syntax, indicating information about the block shape and split shape and de-binarizing the bin strings Par.[0284-0287] based on the bins for split shape information Par.[0288]).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have consider before the effective filing date of the invention, the CABAC process in Kim and further comprehend that the bins representing different context sets are similarly disclosed in Lee detailing the similar process of partitioning e.g., split information being taught at tables in Fig.18 and 19, thus the combination would have been predictable.
Re Claim 2. This claim represents the image encoding apparatus comprising a memory and processor per Kim: Par.[0145], implementing the same process in reverse, at the prediction loop of the encoder, as recited by the limitations of the claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 3. This claim represents the transmission method of data for an image, by obtaining a bitstream for the image based residual samples for a target block, based on a primary transform and resampled at a secondary transform, and transmitting transform data, e.g., in Lee: Par.[0003, 0070, 0072, 0164], or being transmitted as an encoded bitstream to be transmitted to a decoder, Par.[0291-0292], by which performing each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same mapped evidence mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below:
(US 10,708,164); (US 2021/0218962); (US 2017/0094314); (KR 20200045366A) and (CN107710765B).
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRAMOS KALAPODAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4622. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DRAMOS . KALAPODAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/