DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on June 9, 2025. Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on U.S. provisional applications 63/434,085 filed on December 20, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on June 9, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
The following title is suggested: IMAGE ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR DETERMINING AND SIGNALING A NON-SEPARABLE TRANSFORM KERNEL
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “according to the present disclosure may be provided…”, which can be implied and it has more than 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter because the claim is drawn to a “computer-readable storage medium”. The specification in Par. [0416] defines the meaning of this term as “includes media implemented in a form of a carrier wave (e.g., transmission via the Internet)”. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The claims may be amended by changing “computer-readable storage medium” to --- “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garus et al., (US 2024/0129532 A1) referred to as Garus hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 12, Garus discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Par. [0032] source device 102 provides the video data to destination device 116 via a computer-readable medium 110. Par. [0035] Video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream including encoded video data. Source device 102 may then output the encoded video data via output interface 108 onto computer-readable medium 110 for reception and/or retrieval (i.e. storing)) generated by the image encoding method (See MPEP §2113 which recites: "Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps". The method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight.).
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 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, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al., (US 2024/0129532 A1), in view of KOO et al., (US 2021/0337201 A1) referred to as KOO hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Garus teaches an image decoding method (Fig. 3), comprising:
obtaining residual information from a bitstream (Par. [0022] Video encoding generally includes forming a prediction block for a current block of video data, then calculating differences between the current block and the prediction block to form a residual block, Fig. 3 illustrates an encoded video bitstream input);
deriving transform coefficients of a current block based on the residual information (Par. [0022] A “transform block” may be a block of transform coefficients. A video decoder may perform an inverse process, in that the video decoder may decode the transform block, inverse transform the transform block to reproduce the residual block);
deriving residual samples of the current block by performing at least one of a dequantization or an inverse transform on the transform coefficients of the current block Par. [0022] A video decoder may perform an inverse process, in that the video decoder may decode the transform block, inverse transform the transform block to reproduce the residual block); and
reconstructing the current block based on the residual samples of the current block (Par. [0076] Video decoder 300 may inverse quantize the quantized transform coefficients and inverse scan the resulting transform candidates to reconstruct a transform block),
wherein the inverse transform is performed based on at least one of a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) or a low frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) (Par. [0104] inverse transform processing unit 212 may determine an inverse NSPT to be applied to the transform block to reconstruct the corresponding residual block, inverse transform processing unit 212 may retrieve a corresponding inverse LFNST (if applicable) and a corresponding inverse separable transform from transform data 232 and apply the inverse LFNST and inverse separable transform to the transform block to reconstruct the residual block),
wherein a transform kernel for the NSPT or the LFNST is determined (Par. [0162] NSPT & LFNST matrices are present for block sizes 4×4, 4×8, 8×4, 8×8. Each block size may correspond to one of three candidates (C.sub.0, C.sub.1, C.sub.2) in a set depending on the intra mode (35 sets S) utilizing symmetry. The 3 candidates may be either NSPT or LFNST kernels, e.g., candidate 1 is NSPT, candidates 2 and 3 are LFNST, and so on) based on a transform index indicating any one of a plurality of transform kernel candidates belonging to a transform set (Par. [0150] The NSPT matrices may be grouped into sets S.sub.0, S.sub.1, S.sub.2, . . . . Each set may include one or several candidates (matrices) C.sub.0, C.sub.1, C.sub.2, . . . dedicated to a certain block size W×H. The number of S and C can vary in various examples. In one example, every intra mode is associated with a certain set in S. Therefore, there may be 97 possible sets S: S.sub.0, S.sub.1, . . . S.sub.96, assuming 97 intra modes being available. The transform may thus be chosen based on a candidate index, for example, C=4).
Garus does not specifically teach signaling the transform index based on the luma and chroma components. Therefore, Garus fails to explicitly teach wherein the transform index is signaled based on at least one of a first condition for a luma component or a second condition for a chroma component.
However, KOO teaches the transform index is signaled based on at least one of a first condition for a luma component or a second condition for a chroma component (Par. [0276] the decoding apparatus 200 parses the transform index (Transform_idx) indicating the transform to be applied (S2315). Or, the decoding apparatus 200 may select a transform kernel (S2330). For example, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel corresponding to the transform index (Transform_idx). Further, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel considering block size (width, height), intra prediction mode, or Cldx (luma, chroma)).
References Garus and KOO are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify signaling the transform index based on luma and chroma components as taught by KOO in the invention of Garus. This modification would allow the decoding apparatus to parses the transform index indicating the transform to be applied, allow the decoding apparatus to select the transform kernel corresponding to the transform index, or even allow the decoding apparatus to select the transform kernel considering the luma and chroma components (See KOO, Par. [0276]).
Regarding Claim 10, Garus in view of KOO teaches Claim 1. Garus teaches wherein the transform index is signaled based on at least one of whether a non-zero transform coefficient exists at a sample position a top-left sample position (Par. [0028] In the case of LFNST, the prediction area may be limited to a top-left 4×4 area, and a maximum of 4 coefficients may be predicted) in at least one of three color component blocks within the current block (Par. [0048] In general, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may code video data represented in a YUV (e.g., Y, Cb, Cr) format. Par. [0057] A component may be an array or single sample from one of the three arrays (luma and two chroma)) or whether at least one of the three color component blocks is a transform skip block.
Garus does not specifically teach sample position other than a top-left sample.
However, KOO teaches wherein the transform index is signaled based on at least one of whether a non-zero transform coefficient exists at a sample position other than a top-left sample position (Par. [0178] the 64×64 non-separable transform may be applied to the top-left 8×8 area only when the width and height of the two-dimension block obtained by the primary transform, both, are 8 or more, and the rest may be split into 4× blocks and the 16×16 non-separable transform may be applied to each of the 4×4 blocks) in at least one of three color component blocks within the current block (Par. [0210] separately signal the respective NSST indexes for a luminance block and a chrominance block, and respective separate NSST indexes may be signaled for the Cb component and the Cr component, and one common NSST index may be used in case of the chrominance block) or whether at least one of the three color component blocks is a transform skip block (Par. [0210] Where the NSST index shared for the Cb component and the Cr component is used, it is checked whether a non-zero transform coefficient exists in the L+1th position to the sixth position for all of the 4×4 blocks of the Cb component and the Cr component and, if a non-zero transform coefficient is discovered in the L+1th position to the 16th position, signaling for NSST index may be skipped).
References Garus and KOO are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify signaling the transform index based on luma and chroma components as taught by KOO in the invention of Garus so that rather than applying the NSST to all the areas in the two-dimension block obtained by the primary transform, the NSST may be applied to only some areas (See KOO, Par. [0178]).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection of Claim 1, and are met by the reference as discussed above. Claim 11 however recites an encoding method, rather than a decoding method, which is similar in structure expect in reverse operation. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claims 13, it has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection of Claim11, and are met by the references as discussed above. Claims 13 however also recites the following limitations... “A method for transmitting data (See Garus Fig. 1), comprising: obtaining a bitstream for image information (See Garus Par. [0035] Video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream (i.e. obtaining) including encoded video data) and transmitting the data including the bitstream (See Garus Par. [0034] source device 102 generates coded video data for transmission to destination device 116)”.
Claims 2 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al., (US 2024/0129532 A1), in view of KOO et al., (US 2021/0337201 A1), and in further view of XIU et al., (US 2022/0109886 A1) referred to as XIU hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 2, Garus in view of KOO teaches Claim 1. KOO further teaches wherein the first condition for the luma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient (Par. [0274] FIG. 23, the reduced transform may rely on the index (Transform_idx) indicating which transform (e.g., DCT-4 or DST-1) is to be used or which kernel is to be applied (when a plurality of kernels are available)) exist in a predetermined region within a luma component block of the current block (Par. [0276] the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel considering block size (width, height), intra prediction mode, or Cldx (luma, chroma)), and wherein the second condition for the chroma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient (Par. [0274] FIG. 23, the reduced transform may rely on the index (Transform_idx) indicating which transform (e.g., DCT-4 or DST-1) is to be used or which kernel is to be applied (when a plurality of kernels are available) exist in a predetermined region within a chroma component block of the current block (Par. [0276] the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel considering block size (width, height), intra prediction mode, or Cldx (luma, chroma)).
Garus in view of KOO does not specifically teach the a non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in a predetermined region within a luma or chroma component. Therefore, Garus in view of KOO fails to explicitly teach the first condition for the luma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in a predetermined region within a luma component block of the current block, and wherein the second condition for the chroma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in a predetermined region within a chroma component block of the current block.
However, XIU teaches the first condition for the luma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in a predetermined region within a luma component block of the current block (Par. [0093] a fourth syntax element (e.g., tu_cbf_luma in table 1) associated with luma component of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the luma component are zeros (640) (i.e. non-zero transform coefficient does not exist)), and wherein the second condition for the chroma component represents that a non-zero transform coefficient does not exist in a predetermined region within a chroma component block of the current block (Par. [0092] a second syntax element (e.g., tu_cbf_cb in table 1) associated with a first chroma component (e.g., cb) of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the first chroma component are zeros (i.e. non-zero transform coefficient does not exist), and a third syntax element (e.g., tu_cbf_cr in table 1) associated with a second chroma component (e.g., cr) of the first transform unit to indicate whether all transform coefficients of the second chroma component are zeros (630) (i.e. non-zero transform coefficient does not exist)).
References Garus, KOO and XIU are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify signaling non-zero transform coefficients for luma and chroma components do not exist as taught by XIU in the inventions of Garus and KOO. This modification would allow no transform coefficients to be signaled for the luma and chroma components and all the transform coefficients would be set to zero (See XIU, Par. [0075]).
Regarding Claim 3, Garus in combination with KOO and XIU teaches Claim 2. XIU further teaches the predetermined region within the luma component block is a remaining region excluding a first region from the luma component block (Fig. 5A, white part of coding unit (i.e. remaining region), Par. [0072] luma residuals (i.e. first region) of the SBT CU are coded in a position-dependent transform method. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 5A, depending on different SBT partition patterns, two SBT positions are assigned with either DCT-8 or DST-7 transform), and wherein the first region is a region composed of a same number of sample positions as a number of transform coefficients input to the NSPT or the LFNST (Fig. 5A, Par. [0071] If only residuals of a part of the CU (e.g., half, a quarter, or a third of the CU) are coded, the residuals of the whole CU are implicitly partitioned into two groups: the first group of the residuals is coded (i.e. first region) with certain pre-assigned transformations (e.g., DCT-7 or DCT-8) and transmitted from the encoder to the decoder, while the second group of the residuals is set to zero-values without signaling).
Regarding Claim 4, Garus in combination with KOO and XIU teaches Claim 2. XIU further teaches the predetermined region within the chroma component block is a remaining region (Fig. 5B, white part of coding unit, Par. [0072] chroma residuals (Cr and Cb residuals) of a SBT CU are always coded using DCT-2) excluding a first region from the chroma component block (Fig. 5B, Par. [0091] in the SBT-TT-V partition scheme described in FIG. 5B, the middle transform unit is the one that may include non-zero transform coefficient), and wherein the first region is a region composed of a same number of sample positions as an input length of a NSPT or an LFNST corresponding to a size of the chroma component block (Fig. 5B, Par. [0078] When the CBF of one chroma component is equal to 0, all the residuals of the chroma component are set to zero without signaling. Otherwise (i.e., the CBF is equal to 1), only the residuals of the non-zero SBT partition (e.g., the left partition of the SBT-Hal-V position0 and SBT-Quart-V position0 and the right partition of the SBT-Hal-V position1 and SBT-Quart-V positition1 in FIG. 5) are transmitted in bitstream).
Claims 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garus et al., (US 2024/0129532 A1), in view of KOO et al., (US 2021/0337201 A1), and in further view of TSAI et al., (US 2022/0086439 A1) referred to as TSAI hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 7, Garus in view of KOO teaches Claim 1. KOO further teaches the transform index is signaled based on a case in which the first condition for the luma component and the second condition for the chroma component are satisfied (Par. [0276] the decoding apparatus 200 parses the transform index (Transform_idx) indicating the transform to be applied (S2315). Or, the decoding apparatus 200 may select a transform kernel (S2330). For example, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel corresponding to the transform index (Transform_idx). Further, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel considering block size (width, height), intra prediction mode, or Cldx (luma, chroma)).
Garus in view of KOO does not specifically teach a tree type. Therefore, Garus in view of Koo fails to explicitly teach when a tree type of the current block is a single tree, and the transform is applied to a luma component block of the current block but is not applied to a chroma component block of the current block.
However, TSAI teaches when a tree type of the current block is a single tree (Par. [0064] When the leaf CU size can be larger than the predefined size/shape, the luma and chroma share the same partition (i.e. single tree). The TU tiling syntaxes signaling is applied. The leaf CU can be divided into multiple TUs. For each TU, the luma coefficients are signaling before the chroma coefficients. Par. [0068], the contexts of chroma CU split can be different from the luma CU split. the luma chroma can share the same context set (i.e. single tree) for CU split syntaxes), and the transform is applied to a luma component block of the current block but is not applied to a chroma component block of the current block (Par. [0075] the similar concept of using syntax of chroma_split_end can be implemented by using another syntax design. For example, the luma coding tree is first encoded or decoded. When coding the luma leaf CU or after coding the luma leaf CU, a syntax is encoded/parsed to indicate the chroma leaf CU size. The syntax can be related to the partition depth (e.g. QT-depth, BT-depth, TT-depth, CT-depth, and/or total-depth). For example, such syntax can be called chroma_depth_above. If the chroma_depth_above is equal to 0, it means the chroma CU and luma CU use the same partition and have the same CU size (in luma component unit. The chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled for the following luma leaf CU if the chroma_depth_above is signaled in this 32×32 area. For example, for the following 3 luma QT CUs with size equal to 16×16 (no need to be a leaf CU), the chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled).
References Garus, KOO and TSAI are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify single tree type as taught by TSAI in the inventions of Garus and KOO. This modification would allow sharing tree partitioning method when the CU size is larger than a predefined size or shape (See TSAI, Par. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Garus in view of KOO teaches Claim 1. KOO further teaches the transform index is signaled based on a case in which the first condition for the luma component is satisfied without checking whether the second condition for the chroma component are satisfied (Par. [0210] separately signal the respective NSST indexes for a luminance block and a chrominance block).
Garus in view of KOO does not specifically teach a tree type. Therefore, Garus in view of Koo fails to explicitly teach when a tree type of the current block is a single tree, and the transform is applied to a luma component block of the current block but is not applied to a chroma component block of the current block.
However, TSAI teaches when a tree type of the current block is a single tree (Par. [0064] When the leaf CU size can be larger than the predefined size/shape, the luma and chroma share the same partition (i.e. single tree). The TU tiling syntaxes signaling is applied. The leaf CU can be divided into multiple TUs. For each TU, the luma coefficients are signaling before the chroma coefficients. Par. [0068], the contexts of chroma CU split can be different from the luma CU split. the luma chroma can share the same context set (i.e. single tree) for CU split syntaxes), and the transform is applied to a luma component block of the current block but is not applied to a chroma component block of the current block (Par. [0075] the similar concept of using syntax of chroma_split_end can be implemented by using another syntax design. For example, the luma coding tree is first encoded or decoded. When coding the luma leaf CU or after coding the luma leaf CU, a syntax is encoded/parsed to indicate the chroma leaf CU size. The syntax can be related to the partition depth (e.g. QT-depth, BT-depth, TT-depth, CT-depth, and/or total-depth). For example, such syntax can be called chroma_depth_above. If the chroma_depth_above is equal to 0, it means the chroma CU and luma CU use the same partition and have the same CU size (in luma component unit. The chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled for the following luma leaf CU if the chroma_depth_above is signaled in this 32×32 area. For example, for the following 3 luma QT CUs with size equal to 16×16 (no need to be a leaf CU), the chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled).
References Garus, KOO and TSAI are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify single tree type as taught by TSAI in the inventions of Garus and KOO. This modification would allow sharing tree partitioning method when the CU size is larger than a predefined size or shape (See TSAI, Par. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 9, Garus in view of KOO teaches Claim 1. KOO further teaches the transform index is signaled based on a case in which the first condition for the luma component and the second condition for the chroma component are satisfied (Par. [0276] the decoding apparatus 200 parses the transform index (Transform_idx) indicating the transform to be applied (S2315). Or, the decoding apparatus 200 may select a transform kernel (S2330). For example, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel corresponding to the transform index (Transform_idx). Further, the decoding apparatus 200 may select the transform kernel considering block size (width, height), intra prediction mode, or Cldx (luma, chroma)).
Garus in view of KOO does not specifically teach a tree type. Therefore, Garus in view of Koo fails to explicitly teach when a tree type of the current block is a single tree, and the transform is applied to a luma component block and a chroma component block of the current block.
However, TSAI teaches when a tree type of the current block is a single tree (Par. [0064] When the leaf CU size can be larger than the predefined size/shape, the luma and chroma share the same partition (i.e. single tree). The TU tiling syntaxes signaling is applied. The leaf CU can be divided into multiple TUs. For each TU, the luma coefficients are signaling before the chroma coefficients), and the transform is applied to a luma component block and a chroma component block of the current block (Par. [0075] the similar concept of using syntax of chroma_split_end can be implemented by using another syntax design. For example, the luma coding tree is first encoded or decoded. When coding the luma leaf CU or after coding the luma leaf CU, a syntax is encoded/parsed to indicate the chroma leaf CU size. The syntax can be related to the partition depth (e.g. QT-depth, BT-depth, TT-depth, CT-depth, and/or total-depth). For example, such syntax can be called chroma_depth_above. If the chroma_depth_above is equal to 0, it means the chroma CU and luma CU use the same partition and have the same CU size (in luma component unit. The chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled for the following luma leaf CU if the chroma_depth_above is signaled in this 32×32 area. For example, for the following 3 luma QT CUs with size equal to 16×16 (no need to be a leaf CU), the chroma_depth_above syntax is not signaled).
References Garus, KOO and TSAI are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify single tree type as taught by TSAI in the inventions of Garus and KOO. This modification would allow sharing tree partitioning method when the CU size is larger than a predefined size or shape (See TSAI, Par. [0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 specifically define the predetermined region within the chroma component block is a remaining region excluding a first region from the chroma component block, wherein the first region is a region composed of a predetermined number of sample positions, and wherein the predetermined number is determined as a minimum value between a value equal to an input length of a NSPT or an LFNST corresponding to a size of the chroma component block and a predetermined threshold value that is not readily taught or suggested by the prior art uncovered during search or made of record. Claim 6 is allowed for the reasons above by virtue of its respective dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Egilmez et al. (US 2021/0306678 A1) teaches low-frequency non-separable transform processing in video coding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights