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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the font of the reference numerals is generally too small to comport with the requirements of the MPEP; also the reference numerals are generally grainy and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said abstract is in claim, not narrative form as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2022/0210451) in view of The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL (by Cariolaro, Erseghe and Kraniauskas).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jung discloses a method for video decoding, (paragraph 0005, video decoding/coding method) comprising: obtaining, by a decoder, (paragraph 0142, received at decoder, decoder operation) enabling flags at a first level (paragraph 143, high level syntax flags) for at least one mode of intra and inter coding modes, (paragraph 0121, shown Figure 2, intra/inter predictions 252/254, transform for at least one of intra/inter modes) the enabling flags indicating whether [DCT transform] is enabled for the at least one mode; (paragraph 0143, flags indicate application of transform) and in response to the [DCT transform] being enabled at the first level, obtaining, by the decoder, (paragraph 0142, received at decoder, decoder operation) a second flag at a coding unit (CU) level to indicate whether a [DCT transform] is applied to a CU. (paragraph 0144, further flag set for application of transform at CU granularity, premised on first level flag)
Jung fails to disclose the DCT transform is a Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform (FRDCT).
However, The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL teaches a Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform (FRDCT) may be a DCT transform. (Section I)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art that FRDCT be used as a DCT in coding before the effective filing date of the instant application because one of skill in the art would understand that FRDCT is a subset of DCT and may be so used in coding before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL. (Section I)
Regarding claim 15 and 19, claims 15 and 19 are apparatus and computer program product claims, respectively, reciting features similar to claim 1, and are therefore also rendered obvious by Jung in view of The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL for reasons similar to claim 1. Jung discloses the further features of one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store computer executable instructions. (Shown Figure 11)
Regarding dependent claim 2, Jung discloses in response to determining that the [DCT transform] is applied to the CU, (paragraph 0144, transform applied at CU) determining, by the decoder, that the CU includes one of following: horizontal and vertical vectors sharing a [DCT transform] matrix; or horizontal and vertical vectors using separate [DCT transform] matrices. (paragraph 0145, horizontal/vertical transforms applied)
Jung fails to disclose the DCT transform is a Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform (FRDCT).
However, The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL teaches a Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform (FRDCT) may be a DCT transform. (Section I)
Same rationale for combining and motivations as per claim 1 above.
Dependent claim 12 recites features similar to claim 2, and thus is rendered obvious by Jung in view of The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL for reasons similar to claim 2.
Dependent claim 16 is an apparatus claim reciting features similar to claim 2, and thus is rendered obvious by Jung in view of The Fractional Discrete Cosine Transform NPL for reasons similar to claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 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:
Lainema (US 2022/0295104) implicates syntax flags at SPS/CU levels with DCT.
Lee (US 2022/0174287) implicates coding background features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights