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
The amendments to the claims, filed on 06/22/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is below.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Deng and Xu fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation “determining whether a MIP predicted block has one transform block or multiple transform block”.
Examiner’s Response: The reference “Deng” [Fig. 24: ‘2402’; para. 0008] discloses ‘a syntax element indicating whether the current video block is coded using … (MIP) mode’ and intra_subpartitions_mode_flag’; ‘intra_subpartitions_split_flag’ [Syntax tables; para. 0737] indicating partition information (i.e. indication a predicted block has one transform block or multiple transform block) [Fig. 5: exemplary partitions: Original partition and horizontal/vertical partition]. In view of the reference “Xu” [Fig. 6: various partitions: 64x64(original partition); 32x32; 16x16, … ; col. 16, ll. 15-37, col. 12, ll. 30-60], Xu explicitly discloses ‘recursively determining whether to transform a current block using a current block size transform or by partitioning the current block and multiform transform partition coding each partition’.
Therefore the combination of Deng and Xu meets the claim limitation “determining whether a MIP predicted block has one transform block or multiple transform block”.
Dependent claims rejection, the arguments render moot per discussion for rejection of claim 1 mentioned-above.
Therefore, all claims 1-20 stand rejected. See the rejections below.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent Nos. 12,278,993 and 11,943,478. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patents to meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1 and rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as claim 1.
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 conflicting 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.
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 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 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (“Deng”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0014783 A1] in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) [U.S Patent No. 10,567,807 B1]
Regarding claim 1, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method performed by a video decoder, the method comprising:
determining that a current block of a bitstream is a matrix based intra prediction (MIP) predicted block [Fig. 24: ‘2402’; para. 0008: ‘a syntax element indicating whether the current video block is coded using … (MIP) mode’; para. 0117: ‘intra_lwip_flag[x0][y0] … affine linear weighted intra prediction’];
(i.e. intra_subpartitions_mode_flag’; ‘intra_subpartiions_split_flag’) [Syntax tables] (i.e. intra_subpartitions_mode_flag’; ‘intra_subpartitions_split_flag’) [Syntax tables] [Fig. 4, 5: ‘Original HxW partition’, Fig. 18: ‘partition unit 201’; para. 0056, 0067: ‘determines whether a neighboring block … is coded in ALWIP’; para. 0103, 0116, 0121: ‘For each Coding Unit (CU) …, a flag indicating if an ALWIP mode is to be applied’; ‘Coding unit syntax’; ‘intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0]’; para. 0737: ‘partition information …’];
responsive to : deriving the MIP predicted block based on a MIP weight matrix [Figs. 6-9; para. 0067, 0071-0098, 0125]; and
responsive to : deriving a first MIP predicted transform block based on the MIP weight matrix [Figs. 6-9; para. 0014: ‘predicting, based on the ALWIP mode, a plurality of sub-blocks of the current; para. 0067, 0071-0098, 0125]; and
deriving remaining MIP predicted transform blocks based on the MIP weight matrix [para. 0067-0068, 0097: ‘The prediction signal at the remaining positions …’; ‘only horizontal interpolation remains to be performed’] and at least one derived MIP predicted transform block of the MIP predicted block.
Deng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
determining whether
responsive to determining that the MIP predicted block has one transform block: deriving the MIP predicted block based on a MIP weight matrix; and
responsive to determining that the MIP predicted block has multiple transform blocks: deriving a first MIP predicted transform block based on the MIP weight matrix;
However in the same field of endeavor Xu discloses the deficient claim as follows:
determining whether [Fig. 6; col. 16, ll. 15-37: ‘determining whether to transform partition the current block …’; ‘recursively determining whether to transform a current block using a current block size transform or by partitioning the current block and multiform transform partition coding each partition’] the MIP predicted block has one transform block [Fig. 6: 64x64 block ‘610’; col. 12, ll. 30-60] or multiple transform blocks [Fig. 6: 16x16 block ‘660’; col. 12, ll. 30-60];
responsive to determining [Fig. 6; col. 16, ll. 15-37] that the MIP predicted block has one transform block: deriving the MIP predicted block based on a MIP weight matrix; and
responsive to determining [Fig. 6; col. 16, ll. 15-37] that the MIP predicted block has multiple transform blocks: deriving a first MIP predicted transform block based on the MIP weight matrix;
Deng and Xu are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Deng and Xu for video coding using transform partitioning to reduce a cost for encoding [Xu: col. 16, ll. 15-37].
Regarding claim 2, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the current block is a MIP predicted block comprises determining whether a syntax element in the bitstream indicates that the current block is a MIP predicted block [para. 0008: ‘a syntax element indicating whether the current video block is coded using a matrix intra prediction (MIP) mode’].
Regarding claim 3, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether the current block is an intra predicted block, wherein the determining whether the current block is a MIP predicted block is responsive to determining that the current block is an intra predicted block [Fig. 18, 19: ‘intra prediction unit’; para. 0103: ‘For each Coding Unit (CU) in intra mode, a flag indicating if an ALWIP mode is to be applied on the corresponding Prediction Unit (PU) or not is sent in the bitstream’].
Regarding claim 4, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a width and a height of the current block based on syntax elements in the bitstream [para. 0064, 0116: ‘a rectangular block of width W and height H’; Syntax tables: ‘cbWidth’; ‘cbHeight’].
Regarding claim 6, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the MIP weight matrix to be used to decode the MIP predicted block based on a MIP prediction mode [Figs. 21-24; para. 0007, 0476, 0743: i.‘the selection of transform matrix may depend the ALWIP intra-prediction mode.’] of the MIP predicted block.
Regarding claim 7, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the MIP predicted block or the first MIP predicted transform block and the remaining MIP predicted transform blocks for subsequent processing by the video decoder [Figs. 6-9; para. 0014: ‘predicting, based on the ALWIP mode, a plurality of sub-blocks of the current; para. 0067, 0071-0098, 0125].
Regarding claim 8, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Deng discloses “a processor; and memory coupled with the processor” [Fig. 15; para. 0698].
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the “non-transitory computer readable medium including program code” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Deng discloses “program code” [Fig. 15; para. 0698].
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the “non-transitory computer readable medium including program code” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the “non-transitory computer readable medium including program code” form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (“Deng”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0014783 A1] in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”) [U.S Patent No. 10,567,807 B1] in further view of Deng et al. (“Deng_389”) [U.S Patent No. 11,425,389 B2]
Regarding claim 5, Deng meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein determining whether the MIP predicted block has one transform block or multiple transform blocks comprises:
deriving [para. 0076, 0079, 0087, 0088: max(W, H)];
responsive to the width of the current block being less than or equal to the maximum transform size (e.g. ‘cbWidth and cbHeight are less than or equal 8’) [para. 0064, 0116, 0183: ‘a rectangular block of width W and height H’; Syntax tables: ‘cbWidth’; ‘cbHeight’] and the height of the current block being less than or equal to the maximum transform size (e.g. ‘cbWidth and cbHeight are less than or equal 8’) [para. 0064, 0116, 0183], determining that the MIP predicted block has one transform block [Figs. 6-9; para. 0014: ‘predicting, based on the ALWIP mode, a plurality of sub-blocks of the current; para. 0067, 0071-0098, 0125]; and
responsive to the width of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size (e.g. ‘cbWidth and cbHeight are less than or equal 8’) [para. 0064, 0116, 0183: ‘a rectangular block of width W and height H’; Syntax tables: ‘cbWidth’; ‘cbHeight’] or the height of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size (e.g. ‘cbWidth and cbHeight are less than or equal 8’) [para. 0064, 0116, 0183], determining that the MIP predicted block has multiple transform blocks [Figs. 6-9; para. 0014: ‘predicting, based on the ALWIP mode, a plurality of sub-blocks of the current; para. 0067, 0071-0098, 0125].
Deng does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
deriving a maximum transform size based on syntax elements in the bitstream;
… ; and
responsive to the width of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size or the height of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size, determining that the MIP predicted block has multiple transform blocks.
However in the same field of endeavor Deng_389 discloses the deficient claim as follows:
deriving a maximum transform size [col. 9, ll. 20-50, col. 16, ll. 60-65: ‘MaxTbSizeY’] based on syntax elements in the bitstream;
…; and
responsive to the width of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size or the height of the current block being greater than the maximum transform size [col. 9, ll. 20-50, col. 16, ll. 60-65: ‘cbWidth is greater than MaxTbSizeY, intra_subpartitions_split_flag[x0][y0] …’], determining that the MIP predicted block has multiple transform blocks.
Deng, Xu and Deng_389 are combinable because they are from the same field of video coding.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Deng, Xu and Deng_389 for video coding using maximum transform size for splitting a transform block in accordance with the video standards HEVC or VVC [Deng_389: col. 1].
Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the video decoder form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights