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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SIEKMANN (US 20210084301 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SIEKMANN teaches an image decoding method, comprising:
configuring a transform set for a current block, the transform set including a plurality of transform kernel candidates available to the current block (The encoder 10 and decoder 20 may be configured to determine 122 a transform candidate list 98 of transforms for a current residual block 84 out of the set 94 of transforms [0235]);
determining a transform kernel of the current block from the transform set based on a transform kernel candidate index indicating one of the plurality of transform kernel candidates ([0462] The transform index may be coded by coding a flag first, which may indicate if the first candidate is chosen.);
performing an inverse transform on the current block based on the transform kernel of the current block to derive a residual sample of the current block ([0241] As also shown in FIG. 16, the encoder 10 and the decoder 20 may inverse-transform the secondary transform coefficients 134, wherein a domain of the inverse-transform may correspond to the codomain of the secondary transform.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the residual sample of the current block (A combiner 42 of the prediction stage 36 then recombines, such as by addition, the prediction signal 26 and the prediction residual signal 24″″ so as to obtain a reconstructed signal 46, i.e. a reconstruction of the original signal 12. Reconstructed signal 46 may correspond to signal 12′. [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, SIEKMANN teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein a binarization of the transform kernel candidate index is determined as either a truncated unary code or a fixed-length code based on a number of transform kernel candidates included in the transform set (coding the transform index with a truncated unary code. [0424]).
Regarding claim 11, …a bit stream generated by a… method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples 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 medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 11 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure 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 claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by SIEKMANN which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0014]).
Regarding claim 12, a method for transmitting a bitstream only containing details on how the bitstream is being generated only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05.
The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed method for transmitting the bitstream. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the generation of bitstream in terms of how the video gets encoded within the bitstream, there is provided no functional relationship between the bitstream’s contents once generated and the process for transmitting the bitstream. As result, the contents of the bitstream are non-functional descriptive language and will be given not patentable weight. See Id.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez (US 20220030278 A1).
Regarding claim 3, SIEKMANN teaches the image decoding method of claim 1.
SIEKMANN does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Egilmez teaches wherein the transform set is configured by adding a specific transform kernel to a Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) set, and wherein the specific transform kernel may include at least one of a reference transform kernel or one or more transform kernels derived based on the reference transform kernel ([0016] FIG. 6 is a conceptual diagram representing an example of multiple transform selection (MTS) signaling used to identify two transforms.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Egilmez and apply them to SIEKMANN. One would be motivated as such as Multiple Transform Selection provides the most efficient transform.
Regarding claim 4, SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez teaches the image decoding method of claim 3. Egilmez teaches wherein the specific transform kernel is added before a first transform kernel candidate in the MTS set or after a last transform kernel candidate in the MTS set ([0203] a. In one example, two more transform candidates can be added on top of the current VVC, so that in total 8 separable transform candidates are allowed as shown in Table 2). The same motivation used to combine SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez in claim 3 is applicable.
Regarding claim 5, SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez teaches the image decoding method of claim 3. Egilmez teaches wherein one or more transform kernel candidates in the MTS set is replaced by the added specific transform kernel ([0201] 1. The MTS design can be extended by including new transform candidates with or without replacing the some of the current set of candidates in VVC, shown in Table 1.). The same motivation used to combine SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez in claim 3 is applicable.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez further in view of Naser (US 20260181180 A1).
Regarding claim 6, SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez teaches the image decoding method of claim 3. SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Naser teaches wherein a number of specific transform kernels added to the MTS set is determined based on at least one of a context or MTS set index of the current block ([0133] In examples, the number of MTS transform candidates (e.g., a maximum number of MTS transform indices) may be set to 2, 4, or 6, and a truncated binary code may be used to represent an MTS index, ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Naser and apply them to SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez. One would be motivated as such as improvements to the transform coding process leads to improved video coding performance.
Regarding claim 7, SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez and Naser teaches the image decoding method of claim 6. Naser teaches wherein the number of specific transform kernels added to the MTS set is variably determined based on a sum of absolute values of all or some of transform coefficients in the current block (A number of MTS candidates (e.g., 1, 4, or 6 MTS candidates) may be considered based on a sum of absolute values of transform coefficients (e.g., coeff). [0121]). The same motivation used to combine SIEKMANN in view of Egilmez and Naser in claim 6 is applicable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIEKMANN in view of Naser.
Regarding claim 8, SIEKMANN teaches the image decoding method of claim 1. SIEKMANN does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Naser teaches wherein a total number of transform kernel candidates available to the current block is set differently depending on at least one of a context or MTS set index of the current block ([0133] In examples, the number of MTS transform candidates (e.g., a maximum number of MTS transform indices) may be set to 2, 4, or 6, and a truncated binary code may be used to represent an MTS index, ).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Naser and apply them to SIEKMANN. One would be motivated as such as improvements to the transform coding process leads to improved video coding performance.
Regarding claim 9, the image encoding method of claim 9 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the image decoding method of claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 10, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 10 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the image decoding method of claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 11, the method of transmitting data of claim 11 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the image decoding method of claims 1-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights