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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, which recites the limitation “.. the second flag indicates KLT being not enabled, pairing, by the encoder, a matrix transform…” it is unclear as what Applicant’s intention is regarding “pairing” by the encoder, a matrix transform…”
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
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)(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(s) 1, 7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al., (WO 2020/156670 A1).
As per claim 1, Zhao teaches a method for video encoding, comprising: deriving, by an encoder, a karhunen-loeve transform (KLT) matrix from a video sequence (fig. 1, fig. 5-6; abstract, pg. 4 lines 10-15, pg. 8 lines 29-31; pg. 9 lines 15-19; pg. 13 lines 24-26; pg. 20 lines 5-8); generating, by the encoder (fig. 5-8), an adaptive KLT matrix signal for the KLT matrix (pg. 21 lines 5-33; and fig. 8 “… after decoding each block, a small update can be applied to the KLT matrix which was used to decode said block”); and signaling, by the encoder, the KLT matrix signal in a sequence parameter set (SPS) header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from the video sequence, in a picture parameter set (PPS) header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from each picture in the video sequence, or in a slice header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from each slice in the video sequence (pg. 20 lines 19 to pg. 21 line 10, “…It is also possible that transform matrix updates can be signaled as part of the bitstream, such as picture parameter set (PPS), or sequence parameter set (SPS) or slice header or other side information parameter set).
As per claim 7, Zhao teaches a method for video decoding, comprising: receiving, by a decoder, an adaptive karhunen-loeve transform (KLT) matrix signal in a sequence parameter set (SPS) header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from a video sequence, in a picture parameter set (PPS) header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from each picture in the video sequence, or in a slice header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from each slice in the video sequence (fig, 9, pg. 5 lines 30-33, pg. 8 lines 26-27; pg. 10 lines 4-9, 23-31, pg. 20 lines 15 to pg. 22 line 17, “… after decoder each block, a small update can be applied to the KLT matrix which was used to decode said block”… “then using the KLT matrix then using the KLT matrix Kold from the current KLT, the KLT matrix can be updated to Knew using the update step Δ: Knew=Kold+Δ+KAPE) and “… it is also possible that the transform matrix updates can be signaled as part of the bitstream, such as picture parameter set (PPS), or sequence parameter set (SPS), or slice header or other side information”) and obtaining, by the decoder, a KLT matrix based on the adaptive KLT matrix signal (fig. 9 and pg. 5 lines 30-33, pg. 8 lines 26-27; pg. 10 lines 4-9, 23-31, pg. 20 lines 15 to pg. 22 line 17).
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of the method 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with the limitations of the method 7, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 7 also applies here.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lainema et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0007672 A1).
Regarding claim 18 and claim 19, the recitation of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a bitstream…” is a product by process claim limitation, where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method. MPEP2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method). The structure includes the data in compressed form manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP 2111.05 (I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable storage medium merely serves as support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP 2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 18 and claim 19, merely serve as support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP 2111.05 (III). Thus, the scope of claims 18 and 19 is just a storage medium storing data is anticipated by Lainema et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/00007672 A1) where disclosed in at least fig. 8 and [0208] “…the recording storage 1570 may comprise any type of mass memory to store the coded media bitstream. The recording medium may alternatively or additively comprise computation memory, such as random access memory”).
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.
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(s) 2, 8, 10-11, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., (WO 2020/0156670 A1) and in view of Lainema et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0007672 A1).
As per claim 2, Although Zhao discloses applying, by the encoder, codes to code elements within the KLT matrix (pg. 17 lines 24-28, “The Entropy Coding module can implement any form of entropy coding, e.g. CABAC or CAVLC. Additionally, KLT Transform Selection Side Information, such as at least one transform coefficient, the encoding KLT, or a syntax element, is entropy coded and written to the bitstream”), Zhao does not explicitly disclose applying, by the encoder, exponential-golomb (EG) codes to code elements.
However, Lainema teaches the known concept of applying, by the encoder, exponential-golomb (EG) codes to code elements ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved image quality, In addition, one would have been prompted to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao in order to yield the predictable results of providing efficient image coding.
As per claim 8, Although Zhao teaches decoding, by the decoder (fig. 7), elements within the KLT matrix (fig. 7 and pg. 20 lines 25-31; pg. 17 lines 24-28), Zhao does not explicitly disclose decoding by the decoder, elements using exponential-golomb (EG) codes.
However, Lainema teaches the known concept of decoding by the decoder, elements using exponential-golomb (EG) codes (0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved image quality, In addition, one would have been prompted to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao in order to yield the predictable results of providing efficient image coding.
As per claim 10, Zhao teaches an apparatus for video coding, comprising: deriving, by an encoder, a karhunen-loeve transform (KLT) matrix from a video sequence, each picture in the video sequence, or each slice in the video sequence (fig. 1, figs. 4-6 and pg. 15 lines 29-30; pg. 16 lines 8-12, lines 30-34; pg. 20 lines 5-8); generating, by the encoder, and adaptive KLT matrix signal for the KLT matrix (pg. 10 lines 9-11, 29-31; pg. 21 lines 5-33; and figs.4-8 “… after decoding each block, a small update can be applied to the KLT matrix which was used to decode said block”); and signaling, by the encoder, the adaptive KLT matrix signal in a sequence parameter set (SPS) header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from the video sequence, in a picture parameter set (PPS) header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from each picture in the video sequence, or in a slice header in response to the KLT matrix being derived from each slice in the video sequence (pg. 20 lines 19 to pg. 21 line 10, “…It is also possible that transform matrix updates can be signaled as part of the bitstream, such as picture parameter set (PPS), or sequence parameter set (SPS) or slice header or other side information parameter set) or to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a decoder, the adaptive KLT matrix signal in the SPS header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from a video sequence, in the PPS header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from each picture in the video sequence, or in a slice header in response to the adaptive KLT matrix signal being derived from each lice in the video sequence (pg., 9, pg. 5 lines 30-33, pg. 8 lines 26-27; pg. 10 lines 4-9, 23-31, pg. 20 lines 15 to pg. 22 line 17, “… after decoder each block, a small update can be applied to the KLT matrix which was used to decode said block”… “then using the KLT matrix then using the KLT matrix Kold from the current KLT, the KLT matrix can be updated to Knew using the update step Δ: Knew=Kold+Δ+KAPE) and “… it is also possible that the transform matrix updates can be signaled as part of the bitstream, such as picture parameter set (PPS), or sequence parameter set (SPS), or slice header or other side information”); and obtaining, by the decoder, the KLT matrix based on the adaptive KLT matrix signal (fig. 9 and pg. 5 lines 30-33, pg. 8 lines 26-27; pg. 10 lines 4-9, 23-31, pg. 20 lines 15 to pg. 22 line 17).
Zhao does not explicitly disclose one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions are configured to perform operations, as recited in claim 10.
However, Lainema teaches one or more processors ([0035], [0043]), a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processor, upon execution of the instructions are configured to perform operations ([0043], [0198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved image quality, In addition, one would have been prompted to incorporate the teachings of Lainema with Zhao in order to yield the predictable results of providing efficient image coding.
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 2, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding apparatus with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 2 also applies here.
As per claim 4, Zhao does not explicitly disclose generating, by the encoder, a first flag indicating whether Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) is enabled for a coding unit (CU); and generating, by the encoder, a second flag to indicate whether KLT is enabled for the U.
However, teaches generating, by the encoder, a first flag indicating whether Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) is enabled for a coding unit (CU) ([0050]), and generating, by the encoder, a second flag to indicate whether KLT is enabled for the CU ([0048], [0050]; “.. cu_klt_flag is a flag to indicate the usage of KLT”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Naser with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 5, Zhao (modified by Naser) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 4. Zhao does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the first flag indicates MTS being enabled and the second flag indicates KLT not being enabled, pairing, by the encoder, a matrix transform in versatile video coding (VVC) or enhanced compression mode (ECM) standards.
However, Nasar teaches determining that the first flag indicates MTS being enabled and the second flag indicates KLT not being enabled, pairing, by the encoder, a matrix transform in versatile video coding (VVC) or enhanced compression mode (ECM) standards ([0048-0050]; Naser discloses that MTS and LFNST is inferred when KLT is enabled, thus one of ordinary skill would recognize that when MTS and LFNS is enabled, KLT is inferred or not signaled, thus enabling the use of MTS or LFNST).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Naser with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 13, Zhao (modified by Lainema) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 10, Zhao does not explicitly disclose generating, by the encoder, a first flag to indicate whether Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) is enabled for a coding unit (CU) and; generating, by the encoder, a second flag to indicate whether KLT is enabled for the CU.
However, Nasar teaches generating, by the encoder, a first flag to indicate whether Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) is enabled for a coding unit (CU) and; generating, by the encoder, a second flag to indicate whether KLT is enabled for the CU ([0048-0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Naser with Zhao for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
As per claim 14, Zhao (modified by Lainema and Naser) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above see claim 13. Zhao does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the first flag indicates MTS being enabled and the second flag indicates KLT being not enabled, pairing, by the encoder, a matrix transform in versatile video coding (VVC) or enhanced compression mode (ECM) standards ([0048-0050]; Naser discloses that MTS and LFNST is inferred when KLT is enabled, thus one of ordinary skill would recognize that when MTS and LFNS is enabled, KLT is inferred or not signaled, thus enabling the use of MTS or LFNST).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Naser with Zhao (modified by Lainema) for the benefit of providing improved coding efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 9, 15 and 17 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:
Talapov et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0053601 A1), “Optimized Lossless Data Compression Methods”
Chiang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20210160541 A1), “Signaling Multiple Transmission Selection”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486