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 .
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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,088 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter regarding the parsing of LFNST indexes based on transform skip flags and color component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a prior art DVD or similar. Claim 13 is a product-by-process claim. Such claims must be structurally distinguishable over the prior art without regard to the process by which they are made. In this case, because there is no patentable weight given to the method that “generates” the CRM, a prior art DVD or similar manufacture reads on the claimed manufacture. Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 102.
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 disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 2022/0224898 A1) and Tsukuba (US 2021/0243475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests a method, comprising: obtaining residual information from a bitstream (Chiang, ¶¶ 0026 and 0045: teaches obtaining residual transform coefficients from a bitstream); deriving transform coefficients for a current block based on the residual information (Chiang, ¶¶ 0026 and 0045: teaches obtaining residual transform coefficients from a bitstream); deriving residual samples for the current block based on a non-separable transform on the transform coefficients (Chiang, ¶¶ 0026 and 0045: teaches obtaining residual transform coefficients from a bitstream for the current block based on secondary transforms; Chiang, ¶ 0046: teaches the secondary transform can be a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST)); and generating a reconstructed picture based on the residual samples, wherein a non-separable transform index is parsed based on a DC significant coefficient variable indicating whether a significant coefficient is present only in a DC component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches, “If all the positions of the last significant coefficients for the one or more TBs are equal to the first position, it implies there is only a DC coefficient in each TB in the current block, and the video encoding system skips signaling the secondary transform index”), wherein the DC significant coefficient variable is derived based on at least one of a first transform skip flag for a chroma Cb component of the current block or a second transform skip flag for a chroma Cr component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches the secondary transform is not available when the transform is skipped (obviously); Even though the skilled artisan would interpret Chiang to teach the transform skip flags apply to any block, including the Cr and Cb chroma blocks, Chiang does not explicitly teach transform skip flags signaled separately for the chroma blocks; Tsukuba, ¶ 0320 and Fig. 38: teaches the chrominance skip flags can be either decoded or derived from luminance skip information for both primary and secondary transform purposes), wherein deriving the residual samples comprises: applying the non-separable transform to first transform coefficients related to the chroma Cb component based on the non-separable transform index (Tsukuba, ¶ 0094 and Fig. 66: teaches encoding (and thus decoding) the chroma secondary transform index; see also Chiang, ¶ 0012; Tsukuba, ¶¶ 0021 and 0022: teaches a secondary transform index identifies the secondary transform to apply; Chiang, ¶ 0046: teaches the secondary transform can be a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST)) and the first transform skip flag (Tsukuba, ¶ 0320 and Fig. 38: teaches the chrominance skip flags can be either decoded or derived from luminance skip information for both primary and secondary transform purposes); and applying the non-separable transform to second transform coefficients related to the chroma Cr component based on the non-separable transform index (Tsukuba, ¶ 0094 and Fig. 66: teaches encoding (and thus decoding) the chroma secondary transform index; see also Chiang, ¶ 0012; Tsukuba, ¶¶ 0021 and 0022: teaches a secondary transform index identifies the secondary transform to apply; Chiang, ¶ 0046: teaches the secondary transform can be a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST)) and the second transform skip flag (Tsukuba, ¶ 0320 and Fig. 38: teaches the chrominance skip flags can be either decoded or derived from luminance skip information for both primary and secondary transform purposes), and wherein the non-separable transform index is parsed based on a tree type of the current block being a dual tree chroma (Tsukuba, ¶¶ 0483–0485: teaches that when the luminance and chrominance are not coded together, e.g. not single tree, i.e. dual tree chroma, then the residual signals are not assumed similar and thus separate secondary transform index identifier is coded in the bitstream; While Tsukuba’s teachings might suggest the dual tree structure indicates separate secondary transform signaling, Chiang, ¶ 0012: teaches when dual tree is enabled, separate secondary transform indexes for luma and chroma are signaled).
One of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Chiang, with those of Tsukuba, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice secondary transforms (LFNST) using signaling schemes for chroma dual tree would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Chiang’s use of certain secondary transform constraints with Tsukuba’s teachings regarding separate or combined treatment of luma/chroma/chroma channel parameters such as transform skip and secondary transform index represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Chiang and Tsukuba used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein a value of the DC significant coefficient variable is initially set to 1 (Examiner finds it is common to set variable to default values at higher levels and then determine their value for each block; This is a standard coding technique and most coding languages require variables to be set to a default value), wherein the value of the DC significant coefficient variable is derived as 0 based on at least one of a value of the first transform skip flag or a value of the second transform skip flag being 0, and wherein the non-separable transform index is parsed based on the value of the DC significant coefficient variable being 0 (Examiner notes the transform skip flags being zero means transform is not skipped and thus LFNST is possible; Examiner further notes that assigning meaning to flags is arbitrary and thus whether a value is zero or one is not, by itself, patentable; Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero; Chiang, ¶ 0019: explaining that the secondary transform index is signaled, if at all, after determining transform information such as last significant coefficient information and skip information; Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches, “If all the positions of the last significant coefficients for the one or more TBs are equal to the first position, it implies there is only a DC coefficient in each TB in the current block, and the video encoding system skips signaling the secondary transform index”; Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches the secondary transform is not available when the transform is skipped (obviously); Even though the skilled artisan would interpret Chiang to teach the transform skip flags apply to any block, including the Cr and Cb chroma blocks, Chiang does not explicitly teach transform skip flags signaled separately for the chroma blocks; Tsukuba, ¶ 0320 and Fig. 38: teaches the chrominance skip flags can be either decoded or derived from luminance skip information for both primary and secondary transform purposes).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein a value of the DC significant coefficient variable is initially set to 1 in a coding unit level of the current block (Examiner finds it is common to set variable to default values at higher levels and then determine their value for each block; This is a standard coding technique and most coding languages require variables to be set to a default value), and wherein the value of the DC significant coefficient variable is set to 0 in a residual coding level based on at least one of a value of the first transform skip flag or a value of the second transform skip flag being 0 (Examiner notes the transform skip flags being zero means transform is not skipped and thus LFNST is possible; Examiner further notes that assigning meaning to flags is arbitrary and thus whether a value is zero or one is not, by itself, patentable; Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero; Chiang, ¶ 0019: explaining that the secondary transform index is signaled, if at all, after determining transform information such as last significant coefficient information and skip information; Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches, “If all the positions of the last significant coefficients for the one or more TBs are equal to the first position, it implies there is only a DC coefficient in each TB in the current block, and the video encoding system skips signaling the secondary transform index”; Chiang, ¶ 0068: teaches the secondary transform is not available when the transform is skipped (obviously); Even though the skilled artisan would interpret Chiang to teach the transform skip flags apply to any block, including the Cr and Cb chroma blocks, Chiang does not explicitly teach transform skip flags signaled separately for the chroma blocks; Tsukuba, ¶ 0320 and Fig. 38: teaches the chrominance skip flags can be either decoded or derived from luminance skip information for both primary and secondary transform purposes).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein based on a value of the non-separable transform index being more than 0 and a value of the first transform skip flag for the chroma Cb component being 0, the non-separable transform is applied to the chroma Cb component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero; Chiang, ¶ 0012: teaches the secondary transform index being other than 0 means the secondary transform is applied according to the non-zero index value), and wherein based on the value of the non-separable transform index being more than 0 and the value of the first transform skip flag for the chroma Cb component being 1, the non-separable transform is not applied to the chroma Cb component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein based on a value of the non-separable transform index being more than 0 and a value of the second transform skip flag for the chroma Cr component being 0, the non-separable transform is applied to the chroma Cr component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero; Chiang, ¶ 0012: teaches the secondary transform index being other than 0 means the secondary transform is applied according to the non-zero index value), and wherein based on the value of the non-separable transform index being more than 0 and the value of the second transform skip flag for the chroma Cr component being 1, the non-separable transform is not applied to the chroma Cr component of the current block (Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chiang and Tsukuba teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein based on a value of one of the first transform skip flag for the chroma Cb component and the second transform skip flag for the chroma Cr component being 1 and a value of the other being 0, a value of the DC significant coefficient variable is derived as 0 (Tsukuba, Fig. 27, Line # 5: teaches signaling can be made common between Cb and Cr; Chiang, ¶ 0011: teaches the secondary transform requires that the transform skip mode flag is zero; Chiang, ¶ 0008: teaches transform skip means there are no frequency domain coefficients; see also Chiang, Fig. 6: illustrating that only when a transform operation is performed is there a determination of a last significant coefficient).
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 1 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 2 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 3 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 4 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 5 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 6 but is drawn to the correspond (reciprocal) encoding method rather than the decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7),” 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 2019, JVET-P2001-vC (Version 12) (published 2019-11-12). Page 71 teaches transform skip flag must be false and LfnstDcOnly must be false to decode the lfnst_idx. Page 81 teaches logic that the LfnstDcOnly flag is not set if transform is skipped, suggesting a lack of compatibility between transform being skipped and there being DC only component.
Ahn (US 2021/0185337 A1) teaches a secondary transform applied to the result of a first transform and may only be applied to the DC component only (¶ 0147).
Nalci (US 2020/0396487 A1) teaches determining whether to signal an LFNST index based on a value of a DC component (¶ 0119) and further teaches “if the DC component is zero, then it is not useful to signal LFNST index.” (¶ 0214).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
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.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights