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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 7/1/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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 1-2, 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12273546 (18496610) in view of US 20190104322 A1-Tsukuba, in further view of WO2017058614 A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Referring to claims 1, 7, and 8, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although Conflicting Patent Application 12273546 (18496610), does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in Instant Application-19079434, wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform, the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform, wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block.
However, Tsukuba discloses wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform ([0262], wherein inverse first and secondary transform), the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform (Fig 12 shows inverse secondary transform being performed before the first inverse transform), wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block (Fig 12, [0278-280] wherein the rasterize section of the inverse secondary transform processes each 4x4 subblock (partial region)).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the Instant Application-19079434 to combine the teachings of Tsukuba. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform, the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform, wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block to improve coding efficiency ([0956], Tsukuba).
Tsukuba, IK, and present application fail to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region ([0111], wherein the video decoder applies an inverse ROT 64 (Inv ROT) as a secondary transform for only a low frequency part of transform coefficients matrices; only transform coefficients in the top left 8x8 sub-blocks of 16x16 and 32x32 transform coefficient matrices are considered to be in low frequency parts of the transform coefficient matrices)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba, IK , and present application to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region as taught by Zhao, to improve video quality ([0216], Zhao).
Claims 1-2, 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11284099 (16972426) in view of US 20190104322 A1-Tsukuba, in further view of WO2017058614 A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”)
Referring to claims 1, 7, and 8, taking claim 1 as exemplary, although Conflicting Patent Application 11284099 (16972426), does not explicitly disclose what’s claimed in Instant Application-19079434, wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform, the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform, wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block.
However, Tsukuba discloses wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform ([0262], wherein inverse first and secondary transform), the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform (Fig 12 shows inverse secondary transform being performed before the first inverse transform), wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block (Fig 12, [0278-280] wherein the rasterize section of the inverse secondary transform processes each 4x4 subblock (partial region)).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous for the Instant Application-19079434 to combine the teachings of Tsukuba. It is for this reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform, the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform, wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block to improve coding efficiency ([0956], Tsukuba).
Tsukuba, IK, and present application fail to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region ([0111], wherein the video decoder applies an inverse ROT 64 (Inv ROT) as a secondary transform for only a low frequency part of transform coefficients matrices; only transform coefficients in the top left 8x8 sub-blocks of 16x16 and 32x32 transform coefficient matrices are considered to be in low frequency parts of the transform coefficient matrices)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba, IK , and present application to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region as taught by Zhao, to improve video quality ([0216], Zhao).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190104322 A1-Tsukuba, in view of US 20180192076 A1-IKAI et al (Hereinafter referred to as “IK”), in further view of WO2017058614 A1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”)
Regarding claim 1, Tsukuba discloses a method for decoding an image (Fig. 13), comprising:
decoding a residual coefficient of a current block in the image from a bitstream ([0254], wherein decodes syntax values of syntax elements. The syntax elements consist of residual information);
performing inverse-quantization on the residual coefficient by using a quantization parameter ([0257], wherein dequantization is performed on residual; [0174], discloses that the QP is information indicative of a quantization parameter to be used in inverse quantization) ; and
reconstructing a residual sample of the current block by performing inverse-transform on the inverse-quantized residual coefficient ([0186-0188], wherein reconstructing a decoded image by reconstructing residual from the inverse transform section),
wherein the inverse-transform is performed by a first inverse-transform and a second inverse-transform ([0262], wherein inverse first and secondary transform), the second inverse-transform being performed before the first inverse-transform (Fig 12 shows inverse secondary transform being performed before the first inverse transform),
wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block (Fig 12, [0278-280] wherein the rasterize section of the inverse secondary transform processes each 4x4 subblock (partial region)), and
Tsukuba fails to disclose wherein the quantization parameter is derived based on a quantization parameter prediction value of the residual block, the quantization parameter prediction value being derived based on a quantization parameter of a neighboring block adjacent to the residual block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IK discloses wherein the quantization parameter is derived based on a quantization parameter prediction value of the residual block ([0345], wherein QP1 is derived from a quantization parameter predicted value), the quantization parameter prediction value being derived based on a quantization parameter of a neighboring block adjacent to the residual block ([0348], wherein the quantization parameter predicted value QPpred uses the average or the like of the QP of the block to the left and the QP of the block above the target block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba to disclose wherein the quantization parameter is derived based on a quantization parameter prediction value of the residual block, the quantization parameter prediction value being derived based on a quantization parameter of a neighboring block adjacent to the residual block as taught by IK, because by controlling the quantization parameter qP according to the residual mode, there is exhibited an effect of being able to control appropriately the amount of reduction in the code rate of the residual information regarding the region where the residual mode is. Also, since the code rate of the residual information is correlated with image quality, as a result, there is exhibited an effect of being able to control appropriately the image quality of the region where the residual mode is applied (IK, [0357]).
Tsukuba and IK fail to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region ([0111], wherein the video decoder applies an inverse ROT 64 (Inv ROT) as a secondary transform for only a low frequency part of transform coefficients matrices; only transform coefficients in the top left 8x8 sub-blocks of 16x16 and 32x32 transform coefficient matrices are considered to be in low frequency parts of the transform coefficient matrices)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Tsukuba and IK to disclose wherein the second inverse-transform is applied only to a partial region of the current block, and is not applied to a remaining region of the current block excluding the partial region as taught by Zhao, to improve video quality ([0216], Zhao).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the partial region is determined based on a size of the current block ([0208], 4x4 subblock size).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 2, wherein, in response to the size of the current block being 4x8 or 8x4, the partial region is a 4x4 region located at a top-left of the current block ([0208], 4x4], fig 7 shows top-left region).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second inverse-transform is performed by using a transform matrix ([0128], matrix).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a shape of the transform matrix is square ([0677]), and wherein a size of the transform matrix is 16x 16([0677]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsukuba discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a shape of the transform matrix is non-square ([0677], oblong shape).
Regarding claim 7, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights