DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
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 under US PRO 63/434070 filed on 12/20/2020.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garus, US 2024/0129532 A1 (Garus).
Regarding Claim 1, Garus discloses an image decoding method (Garus Fig1 Decoder 300), comprising:
deriving transform coefficients of a current block from a bitstream (Garus [0188] – video decoder 300 entropy decodes quantized transform coefficients (420), size data, and a prediction mode for a current block of video data (420). Video decoder 300 may inverse quantize the quantized transform coefficients (422) to reconstruct a block of transform coefficients);
determining a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) set for the current block (Garus [0025] – three LFNST classes (LFNST4, LFNST8, LFNST16) can be used depending on the shape of a block of video data. Each of these classes may include, e.g., 35 sets and 3 candidates; [0026] – In some examples, a set is chosen based on the intra mode of the current block);
applying a backward NSPT to at least one of the transform coefficients of the current block based on any one of a plurality of NSPT kernel candidates belonging to the NSPT set to derive residual samples of the current block (Garus [0189] – Video decoder 300 may then determine whether the size and prediction mode are mapped to an NSPT (428). If the size and prediction mode are mapped to an NSPT (“YES” branch of 428), video decoder 300 may inverse transform the block of transform coefficients using the corresponding NSPT (430) to reconstruct a residual block for the block, i.e., without applying an inverse separable transform when reconstructing the residual block); and
reconstructing the current block based on the residual samples of the current block (Garus [0190] – video decoder 300 may form a prediction block using the indicated prediction mode (436) and combine the prediction block with the residual block to reconstruct the current block (438)),
wherein the backward NSPT is applied based on a size of the current block belonging to a group of one or more block sizes to which the NSPT is applicable (Garus [0188] – Video decoder 300 may inverse quantize the quantized transform coefficients (422) to reconstruct a block of transform coefficients; [0189] - Video decoder 300 may then determine whether the size and prediction mode are mapped to an NSPT (428). If the size and prediction mode are mapped to an NSPT (“YES” branch of 428), video decoder 300 may inverse transform the block of transform coefficients using the corresponding NSPT (430) to reconstruct a residual block for the block, i.e., without applying an inverse separable transform when reconstructing the residual block).
Regarding Claim 2, Garus discloses the image decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the NSPT set for the NSPT is determined as any one of 35 pre-defined NSPT sets (Garus [0128] – the data may map sizes of 4×4, 4×8, 8×4, 4×16, 16×4, 8×8, 8×16, or 16×8 and intra-prediction modes to inverse NSPTs, and other sizes and/or prediction modes to inverse separable transforms (and possibly inverse LFNSTs); [0025] – three LFNST classes (LFNST4, LFNST8, LFNST16) can be used depending on the shape of a block of video data. Each of these classes may include, e.g., 35 sets and 3 candidates).
Regarding Claim 3, Garus discloses the image decoding method of Claim 2, wherein each of the 35 NSPT sets includes three NSPT kernel candidates (Garus [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 (C0, C1, C2) 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).
Regarding Claim 4, Garus discloses the image decoding method of Claim 1, wherein the group includes at least one of 4x4, 4x8, 8x4, 8x8, 16x8, 8x16, 16x4, or4x16 (Garus [0167]-[0173] – these paragraphs show all the configurations ).
Regarding Claim 5, Garus discloses the image decoding method of Claim 1, wherein, based on the size of the current block being 8x8, a number of transform coefficients to which the backward NSPT is applied is 32 (Garus [0172] – video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may be configured to apply NSPT to blocks of sizes 8×16, 16×8, or 16×16 blocks. The zero-out mechanism described above may be employed where only 32 or 40 coefficients are kept for 8×16 or 16×8 sized blocks…).
With regard to claim 6, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 6. [Garus also discloses an encoding embodiment (see Fig.2), where it is well known in the art that a decoder performs the steps in a reciprocal manner of the encoder in the system].
With regard to claim 7, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 2 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 2 is applied to claim 7.
With regard to claim 8, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 3 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 3 is applied to claim 8.
With regard to claim 9, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 4 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 4 is applied to claim 9.
With regard to claim 10, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 5 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 5 is applied to claim 10.
With regard to claim 11, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 6 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 6 is applied to claim 11. [Garus also discloses a computer readable medium embodiment (see Garus [0032])].
With regard to claim 12, the claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1 but in a different embodiment. Therefore, the rational used to reject claim 1 is applied to claim 12. [Garus also discloses the transmitting of encoded video data to a destination device (see Garus [0040])].
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim falls outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter at least because the claimed computer-readable recording medium in light of the supporting disclosure is broad enough to encompass transitory embodiments. “A computer-readable storage medium” is detailed in the specification as signal which is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106(I).
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, (Fed.Cir. 2007).
A broad but reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and also transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification does not limit the computer readable medium to one that is non-transitory. See MPEP 2111.01
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights