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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s amendment to claims 10 and 16 of group II and cancellation of claims 11-15.
Claims 1-10 and 16 are now pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 (Awkward Phrasing): The claim recites the limitation: “skipping inversely transforming on the subblocks”. The preposition “on” makes the gerund phrase grammatically off. It should be revised to “skipping inversely transforming the subblocks” or “skipping inverse transformation of the subblocks”.
Claim 7 (Awkward Phrasing): The claim recites the limitation: “an index indicative of one of sets containing …”. This is grammatically awkward and borders on a clarity issue; it should read “one of a plurality of sets” or simply “a set”.
Claim 16 (Grammar/Syntax): The transition phrase is grammatically mismatched with the preamble. It reads “a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprises:”. In standard patent claim syntax, it should utilize a participle (e.g., “the video encoding method comprising:”) or include a conjunction (e.g., “wherein the video encoding method comprises:”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “inversely transforming the subblocks by using a determined transform kernel”. Since Claim 1 already introduced the step of “determining a transform kernel”, Claim 2 is interpreted to refer back to it using a definite article (e.g., “by using the determined transform kernel”) to avoid ambiguity about whether a second kernel is being introduced.
Claim 3 recites the limitation: “decoding a transform skip flag from the bitstream”. However, independent claim 1 never introduces “a bitstream” in its limitations.
Claim 5 refers to “the bitstream” without it being properly introduced in claim 1 or claim 3.
Claim 7, recites the limitation: “The method of claim 6, wherein decoding the transform skip flag comprises: … combined from a transform skip flag for each of the subblocks …”. Claim 6 previously established “a transform skip flag for each of the subblocks”. Claim 7 reintroduced the limitation with an indefinite article (“a”). For the purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as: “The method of claim 6, wherein decoding the transform skip flag for each of the subblocks comprises: … combined from [[a]] the transform skip flag for each of the subblocks …” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 & 9 (“a transform kernel”): Both claims depend on claim 6, which ultimately depends on claim 1. Claim 1 already establishes “determining a transform kernel”. Claim 8 recites the limitation: “implicitly deriving a transform kernel” and claim 9 recites the limitation: “an index that indicates a transform kernel”. Reintroducing the limitation with an indefinite article (“a”) rather than referring to the previously established kernel (“the transform kernel”) introduces ambiguity regarding how many kernels are being claimed. Claims 8 and 9 are interpreted as “the transform kernel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. But, transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” would resolve this issue.
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 1-6, 8-10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al., hereinafter referred to as Lim (US 2023/0007290 A1) in view of Jung et al., hereinafter referred to as Jung (US 2021/0266581 A1).
As per claim 1, Lim discloses a method of decoding a current block by a video decoding apparatus (Lim: Abstract.), the method comprising:
partitioning the current block into subblocks based on a size of the current block and a subblock partitioning direction (Lim: Para. [0566] discloses “When at least one of the width or the height of the current block is greater than or equal to a predefined value [claimed based on a size of the current block], the current block may be partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks [claimed partitioning the current block into subblocks]” and Lim: Para. [0570] discloses “When the block is partitioned, the block may be partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks in at least one of the vertical direction or the horizontal direction [claimed and a subblock partitioning direction]”.);
determining whether a transform skip is to be used on (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform skip mode flag indicating whether transform/inverse transform is skipped in a current block [claimed determining whether a transform skip is to be used on the current block]”.); and
checking whether the transform skip is used (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “when transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag [claimed checking whether the transform skip is used]”.), wherein the method further comprises, when the transform skip is not used (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “when transform/inverse transform is not skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag [claimed wherein the method further comprises, when the transform skip is not used]”):
determining a transform kernel (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform matrix index for secondary transform/inverse transform of the current block [claimed determining a transform kernel]”.).
However, Lim does not explicitly disclose “… determining whether a transform skip is to be used on the subblocks … determining a transform kernel for the subblocks.”.
Further, Jung is in the same field of endeavor and teaches determining whether a transform skip is to be used on the subblocks (Jung: Para. [0124] discloses “The residual block may be … one of blocks divided from the current block … the residual block may represent a transform unit” and Jung: Para. [0129] discloses “transform skip information on the residual block [claimed determining whether a transform skip is to be used on the subblocks]”.); and
determining a transform kernel for the subblocks (Jung: Para. [0265] discloses “the encoder/decoder may perform transform encoding by partitioning the current coding unit (or a coding block) into a plurality of transform units (or transform blocks)” and Jung: Para. [0271] discloses “The transform kernel applied to the transform unit, in which transformation is performed in SBT, may be selected as any one of DST-VII/DCT-VIII/DCT-II depending on the position of the corresponding transform unit and/or the width and the height of the corresponding transform unit [claimed determining a transform kernel for the subblocks]”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Lim and Jung before him or her, to modify the encoding decoding system of Lim to include the transform skip and transform kernel at the subblock level feature as described in Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve coding efficiency by adaptively applying transform algorithms based on the specific distribution of residual signals within partitioned areas.
As per claim 2, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising, when the transform skip is not used:
inversely transforming the subblocks by using a determined transform kernel (Lim: Para. [0011] discloses “when secondary transform/inverse transform is applied to the current block … applying secondary transform/inverse transform to the current block according to the secondary transform matrix [claimed inversely transforming the subblocks by using the determined transform kernel]”), and wherein the method further comprises, when the transform skip is used:
skipping inversely transforming on the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “when transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag, determining that secondary transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block [claimed skipping inversely transforming]” and Jung: Para. [0129] discloses “when a transform-related syntax element for a specific transform block indicates a transform skip, transform on the transform block may be omitted. In this case, both the primary inverse transform and the secondary inverse transform described above regarding the transform block may be omitted [claimed skipping inversely transforming the subblocks]”.).
As per claim 3, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the transform skip is to be used comprises:
decoding a transform skip flag from the bitstream (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform skip mode flag indicating whether transform/inverse transform is skipped [claimed decoding a transform skip flag from a bitstream]”.); and
equally determining whether the transform skip is to be used for all subblocks of the current block based on the transform skip flag (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “when transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag [claimed equally determining whether the transform skip is to be used for current block based on the transform skip flag]” and Jung: Para. [0129] discloses “transform skip information on the residual block [claimed for all subblocks]”.).
As per claim 4, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the transform kernel comprises:
implicitly deriving the transform kernel (Lim: Para. [0869] discloses “the horizontal transform type trTypeHor and the vertical transform type trTypeVer are selected based on the width and height of the current block [claimed implicitly deriving the transform kernel]”.); and
determining a derived transform kernel to be a transform kernel of all the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0869] discloses “in the case of the ISP mode, the horizontal transform type trTypeHor and the vertical transform type trTypeVer are selected based on the width and height of the current block [claimed determining a derived transform kernel to be a transform kernel]” and Jung: Para. [0006] discloses “determining a horizontal transform type … and a vertical transform type”.).
As per claim 5, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the transform kernel comprises:
decoding an index that indicates the transform kernel from the bitstream (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform matrix index for secondary transform/inverse transform of the current block [claimed decoding an index that indicates the transform kernel from the bitstream]”.); and
determining a transform kernel indicated by the index to be a transform kernel of all the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0011] discloses “determining a secondary transform matrix of the current block according to the transform matrix index [claimed determining a transform kernel indicated by the index to be a transform kernel]” and Jung: Para. [0244] discloses applying decoded indexes to partitioned transform blocks.).
As per claim 6, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the transform skip is to be used comprises:
decoding, from a bitstream, a transform skip flag for each of the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform skip mode flag indicating whether transform/inverse transform is skipped in a current block [claimed decoding, from a bitstream, a transform skip flag for]”.); and
determining whether the transform skip is to be used for each of the subblocks based on the transform skip flag (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “when transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag and Jung: Para. [0201] discloses “the decoder may determine whether or not to parse transform_skip_flag of the current transform block [claimed decoding, from a bitstream, a transform skip flag for each of the subblocks]” and Jung: Para. [0205] discloses “If transform_skip_flag[x0][y0][cIdx] is 1, the decoder may not perform transformation [claimed determining whether the transform skip is to be used for each of the subblocks based on the transform skip flag]”.).
As per claim 8, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 6, wherein determining the transform kernel comprises:
implicitly deriving a transform kernel of each of the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0013] discloses “determining the secondary transform matrix of the current block according to at least one of the transform matrix index, a transform matrix set index of the current block, and a size of the current block [claimed implicitly deriving a transform kernel]”); and
determining a derived transform kernel to be a transform kernel of each of the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0011] discloses “applying secondary transform/inverse transform to the current block according to the secondary transform matrix [claimed determining a derived transform kernel to be a transform kernel]” and Jung: Para. [0006] discloses “determining a horizontal transform type applied in the horizontal direction of the current transform block from among a plurality of predefined transform types on the basis of the width of the current transform block [claimed implicitly deriving a transform kernel of each of the subblocks]” and “determining a vertical transform type applied in the vertical direction of the current transform block from among the plurality of predefined transform types on the basis of the height of the current transform block [claimed implicitly deriving a transform kernel of each of the subblocks]; and performing inverse transformation on the current transform block using the horizontal transform type and the vertical transform type [claimed and determining a derived transform kernel to be a transform kernel of each of the subblocks]).
As per claim 9, Lim-Jung disclose the method of claim 6, wherein determining the transform kernel comprises:
decoding, from the bitstream, an index that indicates a transform kernel of each of the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0006] discloses “obtaining a transform matrix index for secondary transform/inverse transform of the current block [claimed decoding, from the bitstream, an index that indicates a transform kernel]”); and
determining a transform kernel indicated by the index to be a transform kernel of each of the subblocks (Lim: Para. [0011] discloses “determining a secondary transform matrix of the current block according to the transform matrix index [claimed determining a transform kernel indicated by the index to be a transform kernel]” and Jung: Para. [0244] discloses “the decoder may examine (or determine) whether or not to parse syntax element tu_mts_idx[x0][y0] indicating the transform kernel applied in the horizontal and vertical directions of the current residual signal [claimed decoding, from the bitstream, an index that indicates a transform kernel of each of the subblocks]” and “The syntax element may include information on whether or not TS is to be applied, information on whether or not MTS is to be applied, and information related to the transform kernels applied in the horizontal and vertical directions [claimed and determining a transform kernel indicated by the index to be a transform kernel of each of the subblocks]”.).
As per claim 10, Lim discloses a method of encoding a current block by a video encoding apparatus, the method comprising:
partitioning the current block into subblocks based on a size of the current block and a subblock partitioning direction (Lim: Para. [0566] discloses “When at least one of the width or the height of the current block is greater than or equal to a predefined value [claimed based on a size of the current block], the current block may be partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks [claimed partitioning the current block into subblocks]” and Lim: Para. [0570] discloses “When the block is partitioned, the block may be partitioned into a plurality of sub-blocks in at least one of the vertical direction or the horizontal direction [claimed and a subblock partitioning direction]”.);
determining whether a transform skip is used on the subblocks of the current block (Lim: Para. [0018] discloses “encoding a transform skip mode flag indicating whether transform/inverse transform is skipped in a current block [claimed determining whether a transform skip is used on the current block]”.);
determining a transform kernel for the subblocks in response to determining that the transform skip is not used (Lim: Para. [0018] discloses “when a transform skip mode is not skipped in the current block according to the transform skip mode flag [claimed in response to determining that the transform skip is not used], determining whether secondary transform/inverse transform is skipped in the current block and, encoding a transform matrix index for secondary transform/inverse transform of the current block [claimed determining a transform kernel]”); and
encoding information on whether the transform skip is used (Lim: Para. [0018] discloses “encoding a transform skip mode flag indicating whether transform/inverse transform is skipped in a current block [claimed encoding information on whether the transform skip is used]”.).
As per claim 16, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 10 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 provided that the rejections pertinent to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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 V. Perungavoor can be reached at 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 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 07-14-2026
Prosecution Insights