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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 220 from Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 285 as described in paragraph 0082. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-12 and 19-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 (and corresponding dependent claims 8-12) and claim 19 (and corresponding dependent claim 20-24) recite “An apparatus comprising a processor configured to perform:…” The Office suggests the following to more clearly define the preamble of the claim from the body:
An apparatus comprising:___________________________________________
_____a processor configured to perform:
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nam et al (US 2022/0038744 and hereafter referred to as “Nam”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nam discloses a method comprising:
decoding an index indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and decoding a flag indicating whether matrix-based intra prediction is used (Table 2-5, Page 15, paragraph 0194, Table 6, Page 23, paragraph 0300, Figure 3, 310);
selecting a vertical transform type and a horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag (Page 9, paragraph 0113 –Table 6, flag determines intra prediction mode, Figure 11, Page 22, paragraph 0229, Table 11, Page 15, paragraph 0195); and
decoding at least one video block using the selected vertical transform type and horizontal transform type (Page 19, paragraph 0201-0203, Page 22, paragraph 0229).
Regarding Claim 7, Nam disclose an apparatus comprising a processor (Page 5, paragraph 0076, Figure 3, processors, chipsets)configured to perform:
decoding an index indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and decoding a flag indicating whether matrix-based intra prediction is used (Table 2-5, Page 15, paragraph 0194, Table 6, Page 23, paragraph 0300, Figure 3, 310);
selecting a vertical transform type and a horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag (Page 9, paragraph 0113 –Table 6, flag determines intra prediction mode, Figure 11, Page 22, paragraph 0229, Table 11, Page 15, paragraph 0195); and
decoding at least one video block using the selected vertical transform type and horizontal transform type (Page 19, paragraph 0201-0203, Page 22, paragraph 0229).
Regarding Claim 13, Nam discloses a method comprising:
obtaining an index indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and obtaining a flag indicating whether matrix-based intra prediction is used (Page 4-5, paragraph 0069, Table 10, Table 11, Tables 2-6, paragraph 0182, Page 23, paragraph 0235, Page 26, paragraph 0262, Page 27, paragraph 0269, Page 18, paragraph 0199);
selecting a vertical transform type and a horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag (Page 9, paragraph 0113 –Table 6, flag determines intra prediction mode, Figure 11, Page 22, paragraph 0229, Table 11, Page 15, paragraph 0195);
encoding the index and the flag (Page 18, paragraph 0199, Page 4-5, paragraph 0069, Table 10, Table 11, Tables 2-6, paragraph 0182, Page 23, paragraph 0235, Page 26, paragraph 0262, Page 27, paragraph 0269,Tables 2-6); and
encoding at least one video block using the selected vertical transform type and horizontal transform type (Page 9, paragraph 0115).
Regarding Claim 19, Nam discloses an apparatus comprising a processor (Page 3, paragraph 0061) configured to perform:
obtaining an index indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and obtaining a flag indicating whether matrix-based intra prediction is used (Page 4-5, paragraph 0069, Table 10, Table 11, Tables 2-6, paragraph 0182, Page 23, paragraph 0235, Page 26, paragraph 0262, Page 27, paragraph 0269, Page 18, paragraph 0199);
selecting a vertical transform type and a horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag (Page 9, paragraph 0113 –Table 6, flag determines intra prediction mode, Figure 11, Page 22, paragraph 0229, Table 11, Page 15, paragraph 0195);
encoding the index and the flag (Page 18, paragraph 0199, Page 4-5, paragraph 0069, Table 10, Table 11, Tables 2-6, paragraph 0182, Page 23, paragraph 0235, Page 26, paragraph 0262, Page 27, paragraph 0269,Tables 2-6); and
encoding at least one video block using the selected vertical transform type and horizontal transform type (Page 9, paragraph 0115).
Regarding Claim 2, 8, 14 and 20, Nam discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, 7, 13 and 19 respectively. Nam discloses further comprising decoding information indicative of use of an implicit multiple transform selection mode and wherein selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag comprises implicitly selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag (Page 9, paragraph 0113 –Table 6, flag determines intra prediction mode, Figure 11, Page 22, paragraph 0229, Table 11, Page 15, paragraph 0195).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 16, 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Zhao et al (US 2020/0014924 and hereafter referred to as “Zhao”)
Regarding Claim 3, 9, 15, and 21, Nam discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, 7, 13 and 19 respectively. Nam discloses wherein, in a case where the index indicates the low frequency non-separable transform is not used and the second syntax element indicates matrix-based intra prediction mode is not used, selecting the at least one transform (Page 19, paragraph 0202, Page 4-5, paragraph 0069, Table 10, Table 11, Tables 2-6, paragraph 0182, Page 23, paragraph 0235, Page 26, paragraph 0262, Page 27, paragraph 0269, Page 18, paragraph 0199) selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type comprises selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type (Table 7).
Nam does not explicitly disclose selecting the at least one transform comprises selecting the at least one transform based on a size of a transform block.
Zhao discloses encoding syntax elements (Figure 5, Page 6, paragraph 0077), selecting at least one transform based on a block size in a case where the first syntax element indicates the low frequency non-separable transform is not used and the second syntax element indicates matrix-based intra prediction mode is not used (Page 4, paragraph 0041, Page 6, paragraph 0077), selecting the at least one transform comprises selecting the at least one transform based on a size of a transform block (Figure 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nam to include the missing limitation as taught by Zhao in order to have a default setting if there is no primary transform type that is signaled (Page paragraph 0041) as disclosed by Zhao as it is beneficial for coding.
It is noted that in claim 3 and 15, the broadest reasonable limitation of in a case is not a limitation that must be performed as it is a contingent limitation and therefore is not required. See MPEP 2111.04(II). The Office is provided a rejection for claim 3 and 15 and is teaching the limitation in order to further prosecution.
Claim 4-6, 10-12, 16-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Zhao, as applied to claim 16, 21, 26 and 31 above, further in view of Chiang et al (US 2022/0046240 and hereafter referred to as “Chiang”).
Regarding Claim 4, 10, 16, and 22, Nam and Zhao disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, 9, 15, and 21 respectively. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Chiang discloses wherein selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type based on the size of the transform block comprises, in a case where a width of the transform block is greater than 4 and lower than 16, selecting a horizontal discrete sine transform of type 7, and selecting a horizontal discrete cosine transform of type 2 otherwise (Page 5, paragraph 0065, 0066). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Chiang in order to provide better video compression to improve the coding performance (Paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Chiang.
It is noted that in claim 4 and 16, the broadest reasonable limitation of in a case is not a limitation that must be performed as it is a contingent limitation and therefore is not required. See MPEP 2111.04(II). The Office is provided a rejection for claim 5 and 17 and is teaching the limitation in order to further prosecution.
Regarding Claim 5, 11, 17, and 23, Nam and Zhao disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, 9, 15, and 21 respectively. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Chiang discloses wherein selecting the at least one transform based on the size of the transform block comprises, in a case where a height of the transform block is greater than 4 and lower than 16, selecting a vertical discrete sine transform of type 7, and selecting a vertical discrete cosine transform of type 2 otherwise (Page 5, paragraph 0065, 0066). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Chiang in order to provide better video compression to improve the coding performance (Paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Chiang.
It is noted that in claim 5 and 17, the broadest reasonable limitation of in a case is not a limitation that must be performed as it is a contingent limitation and therefore is not required. See MPEP 2111.04(II). The Office is provided a rejection for claim 5 and 17 and is teaching the limitation in order to further prosecution.
Regarding Claim 6, 12, 18, and 24, Nam and Zhao disclose all the limitations of Claim 3, 9, 15, and 21 respectively. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Chiang discloses wherein in a case where the index indicates low frequency non-separable transform is used or the flag indicates matrix-based intra prediction mode is used, selecting the vertical transform type and the horizontal transform type comprises selecting a horizontal discrete cosine transform of type 2 and a vertical discrete cosine transform of type 2 (Page 5, paragraph 0065, 0066). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Chiang in order to provide better video compression to improve the coding performance (Paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Chiang.
It is noted that in claim 6 and 18, the broadest reasonable limitation of in a case is not a limitation that must be performed as it is a contingent limitation and therefore is not required. See MPEP 2111.04(II). The Office is provided a rejection for claim 6 and 18 and is teaching the limitation in order to further prosecution.
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.
Claim 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than US 12,267,529.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application
Corresponds to Claim 11 of 12,267,529
A method comprising:
decoding an index indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and decoding a flag indicating whether matrix-based intra prediction is used;
selecting a vertical transform type and a horizontal transform type based on the index and the flag; and
decoding at least one video block using the selected vertical transform type and horizontal transform type.
A method, comprising:
parsing a bitstream for a first syntax element indicating whether a low frequency non-separable transform is used and a second syntax element indicating whether a matrix-based intra prediction is used;
determining that the first syntax element indicates the low frequency non-separable transform is not used and that the second syntax element indicates the matrix-based intra prediction is not used;
selecting at least one transform type based on a size of a transform block responsive to the determining; and
decoding at least one video block based on the selected at least one transform type.
Claim 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 and 1, 2, 3, 2 and 3, 5, 8 and5, 6, 7, 6 and 7, 9, 12 and 9, 10, 11, 10 and 11, 13, 16 and 13, 14, 15 and 14-15 of US 12,267,529 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights